Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

ZKang123

Will take a look.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Metalicat

I'll come at this as a general reader with no background in Austrian confectionery or the German sources, so treat the below as queries rather than anything authoritative. Enjoyable read, and the geographic-reputation framing is a nice touch. Mostly small things.

Lead and Description

• the unhyphenated Sacher torte is also common is a little confusing, because Sachertorte is also unhyphenated. The three forms seem to be hyphenated (Sacher-Torte), closed (Sachertorte) and spaced (Sacher torte), so the spaced form Sacher torte is also common would read more clearly.
  • Done.
• "Elisabeth Gürtler, the director of Hotel Sacher" is present tense but cited to a 2007 source. Is she still in post, or should this be dated or past tense?
  • It seems like she is no longer the director.

Taste and texture

• This section leans fairly heavily on direct quotation (Die Welt, Maier-Bruck, Grigson, Cloake and Krondl in quick succession). It reads well, but paraphrasing one or two might vary the texture, with an eye on 1a.
  • I've tried to paraphrase what I was able to.
• Two small prose nudges: Several explanations have been put forth reads slightly oddly to me (put forward or "offered"), and the author Rick Rodgers reports German recipes are often mistranslated would sit better with a "that": reports that German recipes are often mistranslated.
  • Done.

History

• The one I'd most want your eye on. Several citations are to Krondl 2015 at pages 36, 287 and 405 (the line on Sacher's age and apprenticeship, and the Linzer torte sentence), but the source list defines Krondl 2015 as the Oxford Companion entry at pp. 588–589. Those pages fall well outside that span. They may belong to Krondl 2011 (Sweet Invention), or be other Companion entries needing their own short-cite anchors; either way the short citations don't resolve cleanly as they stand.
  • It seems like this error was on me when I was creating {{sfnm}} templates. I'll fix it now.
• In Hotel Sacher v. Demel, the dispute over ownership remained complicated as Eduard had connections to both: which Eduard, the founder or Eduard Jr.? A clarifying word would help, as both appear.
  • The source says Eduard, not Eduard Jr., so I've specified that.

Modern consumption

• The McDonald's Japan material (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018–2021, each separately cited) is quite granular. I wonder whether it could be condensed to a sentence, partly on weight against the rest of the section.
  • Done.
• Minor consistency: the article alternates between "Sachertorte" and "the Sachertorte".
  • Done.

Sources

• The Becker 1992 journal citation is missing a page range.
  • Done.
• A few web and news citations lack archive links (the 2007 Sydney Morning Herald, and a couple of the Japanese McDonald's sources); worth archiving before this closes.
  • SMH and Gigazine for some reason cannot be archived with IA. I've archived Entabe.

I can't speak to the German-language sourcing. The cake looks delicious! Metalicat (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

All done. Thanks for the review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Jon698

• Looks like an interesting figure. I will make some comments soon. Jon698 (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  Courtesy ping: Jon698 hi Jon, thanks for stopping by. i appreciate your interest in the article. i have fixed all of the formatting issues (and removed some images, due to there being too many) in my ability. since you mentioned you'll be reviewing, would you be willing to help apply the fixes to commons? (i'm blocked there) they are listed above. frankiethey/them (t • c) 16:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, can you list what specific edits you want? Jon698 (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  thanks! i listed a bunch of issues that im currently unable to change (due to a commons block), but i have laid out how to fix them. these are commons-related image tagging and licensing stuff. here they are:

  
  

  File:Antranik.jpg was replaced with File:Andranik Ozanyan.jpg, which can be tagged with PD-Bain (it's part of the Grantham Bain Collection) and US-expired, because it was published/created "between ca. 1915 and ca. 1920".

  File:Legion dHonneur.jpg is a 2d scan of a certificate from the early 1900s. therefore, the US expired and 100-old tags can be added to it

  File:Andranik_wedding_paris_1922.jpg: the first French rationale applies. the author is identified as the studio photographer Abel Minassian, whose career spans the first four decades of the 20th century (making him deceased well over 70 years). since the photo was taken and published in Paris in 1922 (b4 1931), it is automatically public domain in the US under US-expired, too.

  File:Andranik on a horse.jpg this file was published in London in the 1914/1915 volume of the periodical Ararat: A Searchlight on Armenia (via HathiTrust). the work is automatically in the public domain in the US under US-expired (international, b4 1931). UK-unknown (as it was published anonymously over 70 years ago in the UK) alongside US-expired can be added to it.

  File:Zoravar Andranik in Sophia 1912.jpg: this image was published in the US in 1919 in John G. Moskoffian's book Independence for Armenia: An Appeal to the Congress and the People of the United States of America. it was published prior to January 1, 1931; it is automatically in the public domain in the US under US-expired, which provides the missing US tag. since the photographer is anonymous and it was published over 70 years ago, it is also in the public domain in its country of origin, so Bulgaria-anonymous applies too, and old-70-anonymous. frankiethey/them (t • c) 16:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• 1. I'm fine with "commonly known as General Andranik" being kept in, but I don't see why "or simply Andranik" is there. We don't do that for Julius Caesar for example.
• 2. Remove wikilink in "an Armenian military"
• 3. Wikilink Bulgarian Armed Forces for "Bulgarian army" in lede
• 4. Change "under" in "Armenian volunteer battalion under the Russian Imperial Army" to "within"
• 5. "withdrawal left Armenian forces critically isolated" -> remove critically
• 6. "Despite a resolute defense of Erzurum" -> remove resolute
• 7. "Today, he is venerated as a national hero" -> Remove today or change to "In modern Armenia"
• 8. "His paternal ancestors had migrated" -> Remove had
• 9. "Andranik lost his mother when he was just one year old and was raised by his elder sister, Nazeli." -> Does the source only state that his lost his mother? If it says that she died then you should use the phrase "His mother died" which is more clear
• 10. " worsened under the reign of Abdul Hamid II" -> Wikilink to Abdul Hamid II as it is his first mention in the body
• 11. "are named after Sultan Abdul Hamid II" -> Remove wikilink to Abdul Hamid II as his first mention was earlier in this section
• 12. "then the largest city of the Caucasus and a major center of Armenian culture at the time" -> Remove "at the time" as that is already implied by "then the" at the beginning
• 13. "upon him by Sultan Abdul Hamid II" -> Remove wikilink to Abdul Hamid II for same reason as #11
• 14. "in the Mush-Sasun region of Western Armenia" -> Wikilink to Western Armenia as this is the first mention in the body
• 15. "the geopolitical situation in Western Armenia continued to deteriorate" -> Remove wikilink to Western Armenia
• 16. "The Great Powers remained largely indifferent" -> Wikilink to Great power
• 17. Will continue my comments starting with Battle of Holy Apostles Monastery

nice catches, i fixed these, except "simply Andranik", because Andranik falls into the rare category of historical figures who is actually more commonly known by a single name, unlike Julius Caesar. in Armenian culture and historiography, he is universally referred to by just his first name, "Andranik". Caesar is a family cognomen, not a first name, whereas Andranik achieved mononymous status where the first name alone instantly identifies him uniquely. and the article does say andranik a lot, which "simply Andranik" helps explain. frankiethey/them (t • c) 18:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

MCE89

A few suggestions from me:

• the narrow view of Robinson was adopted by the Supreme Court — possibly worth adding the year that this was adopted and/or a link to the relevant case here?
• ...connects the debate to the American public's attitudes on whether criminal punishment should reflect utilitarian or retributive values — I think this could possibly use another sentence of explanation. At the moment it feels like this relies on the reader doing a fair bit of work to fill in what "utilitarian" and "retributive" are referring to, and how they link to differing views of addiction and criminal responsibility
• withdrawal symptoms if they stop using — Given that the sentence is about alcoholism, I think "drinking" would probably fit better than "using" here
• present and work similarly — "Present and work" feels a little redundant, I think you could simplify this to something like "are also present" without losing meaning
• Judge J. Skelly Wright, dissenting in this case... — This sentence seems a bit out of place in the legal background section, possibly worth moving to the section about the appeal?
• Since the act makes no mention of whether or not the law... — The article goes from talking about "acts" in general to a specific act here, but it's not totally clear to me which act is being referred to
• drug addicts are most often not charged with possession — Is the intended meaning here that most charges against drug addicts are for crimes other than possession? I think this phrasing could be interpreted in a few different ways (e.g. you could also read this as saying that the majority of drug addicts are never charged with possession, or that drug addicts are usually not charged with possession after they've been caught with drugs)
• Suggest adding a link to Necessity (criminal law) over necessity defenses in state courts
• I think you could drop the clause rather than clarifying it, since it probably goes without saying that their failure to reach a consensus wouldn't have clarified the debate
• The sentence beginning Unlike most courts after Powell... is quite long and a little difficult to parse, you might want to consider splitting it into two
• Is the link to the dab page rehabilitate at the beginning of the section "District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals" intentional? I don't know whether Rehabilitation (penology) or Drug rehabilitation would be the better link in this context, but I'm not sure linking to the dab page is the best solution
• Not really an issue, but I don't think you need both ref 35 (Barrick 1974, p. 224; Sankin 1974, pp. 397–398.) and ref 36 (Barrick 1974, p. 224; Sankin 1974, p. 398.) in the same sentence
• I'm not usually a stickler for avoiding stranded prepositions, but I think that was the only issue the Court formed a clear majority on would read a little more smoothly as "that was the only issue on which the Court formed a clear majority"
• "was still closer the narrow view" -> "was still closer to the narrow view"
• This is a purely aesthetic suggestion that you are completely free to ignore, but the framed and unframed pictures of Wilkey and Leventhal side-by-side look a little mismatched. Possibly worth swapping the image of Wilkey for a cropped version like File:Malcolm Richard Wilkey (cropped) 2.jpg that doesn't include the frame?
• Is it worth adding a mention of what happened after the sentence was remanded to the trial court?
• "as much evidence as need to decide" -> "as much evidence as needed to decide"
• no deterring effect — I think deterrent effect is the more common form
• affirming the narrow view of Robinson for good — Is "for good" needed here? I'm also not sure it's something that can be stated with certainty — while it's obviously highly unlikely, I assume that the Supreme Court could theoretically reverse itself at any time and adopt a broad view of Robinson
• ...but still make a willing choice in addition to use drugs — Should this just be "...but still make a willing choice to use drugs"?
• Boldt also criticizes Wilkey's "strength of character" argument as vague, writing that it does not sufficiently define the term, and criticizes it as inconsistent — Suggest changing the first part of this sentence to "Boldt also criticizes Wilkey's "strength of character" argument as vague and inconsistent..." to avoid the repetition of "criticizes"
• ...writing in a chapter of a 2016 book called Addiction and Choice... — Suggest simplifying this to "in the 2016 book Addiction and Choice"
• It looks like footnote f is missing a citation

Overall a very interesting article, and these are all pretty minor points. Just ping me when you've had a chance to look through these suggestions :) MCE89 (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

• I don't know if it has anything beyond what you already have, but Claude suggested Peter Morris, Embattled Shadows: A History of Canadian Cinema 1895–1939 (McGill–Queen's University Press, 1978, p 187) as a source.

@RoySmith: That is already included in the article as source 8. Jon698 (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Gallagher 2003 has Doty comparing this film to Gone With the Wind and also remarking that "It was the first time any one in our movie industry attempted to tell a canadian story of national importance". He also goes into more details about the lip-reading process. These seem like significant omissions.
• Turner 1987 talks about the film being shown using two synchronized projectors, which seems like a much more significant fact that the soundbite about the projectionist working in his underwear.
• Smith 1989 talks about technical problems with the original audio recording (and also the "two interlocked Victor projectors, one with sound, the other with picture"). And additional technical problems during the first showing where the film jumped a sprocket, and gives a different take on the "Talbot of Canada" title.
• Reid 1992 echos Smith's claim that the "Talbot of Canada" title only came along after the initial screening. He also says that the recoved portion consisted of the first reel.
• Turner says the film is 90 minutes, not 130 as stated in the article.
• In the same PDF as Gallagher, there's a clip from the Wallacetown United Church Newsletter which explains the meaning of the "Here Will I Nest" title.
• It may be unavoidable, but the text in the synopsis section is edging towards WP:CLOP territory compared to the cited source.
• https://www.elgincounty.ca/ElginCounty/CulturalServices/Archives/TalbotTract/talbot.html has a map; if you can verify that it is PD, it would make a good addition to this article, illustrating the location where the action occurred in a historical context.
• According to Google's AI snippet, the cast were "members from the London Little Theatre in Ontario." I have not found any RS which verifies that, but you should work on running it down; if it can be verified, it would make a good addition.
• I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose based on WP:FACR 1b (comprehensive) and 1c (well-researched). It may indeed be true that there's very little available in the literature, but given that, it seems especially important to make the most of what you've got. Based on the items I found above, I don't think you've done that. RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  Also see https://dotydocs.theatreinlondon.ca/Archives/yesterday/nest.htm. In addition to some additional details about the two-projector setup, there's some photos. If these could be verified to be stills from the movie, I think a good WP:NFU argument could be made to use one or both of them. RoySmith (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I have done all of your comments in edits starting here. I hope it will change your opinion on the article. I will look into adding the map that you showed me and try to find sourcing for the cast being members of the London Little Theatre, which I believe is in on the books currently referenced in the article. (Edit: Here is a revision history showing the page before and after I made the edits you suggested.) Jon698 (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I have requested a copy of Frederick C. Hamil's Lake Erie Baron: The Story of Colonel Thomas Talbot through my library. I should be able to determine if that map is public domain or not within one to two weeks. Jon698 (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• The prior FA nomination was archived because there was only one reviewer that supplied comments, and they did not offer a support/oppose opinion. If I'm reading the edit history correctly, no substantial changes have been made to the article since that nomination a few months ago, correct? Of course, enhancements to an article are not required prior to re-nominating. But can you tell us if an effort was made to find additional material or sources for the article? Knowing about that might encourage more reviewers this time around. Noleander (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  Over the course of May I conducted additional research through sources that I have access through the Wikipedia Library using the search parameters of "Here Will I Nest" and "Talbot of Canada". I found no new information through Cambridge University Press, De Gruyter, JSTOR, and Project Muse. Jon698 (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Talbot_of_Canada.png: is the source given an authorized publication?

• File:Filming_Here_Will_I_Nest.png needs a much stronger FUR, particularly with regards to purpose of use given the tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Icepinner

Marking my spot. Really glad to see this on FAC! Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 08:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Metalicat

A few prose and consistency points. Had the pleasure of using this line to get around Singapore last month!

Lead

• "Singapore" is wikilinked in the first sentence. MOS:GEOLINK lists major countries as not usually linked; I'd delink.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

History — Planning

• "The 40 km (25 mi) line would be built in three stages with 33 stations and was expected to be completed by 2018.": the operational figure given in the infobox is 41.9 km. If 40 km was the early planning estimate, "The line was planned at approximately 40 km" would make that clear.
  • Wrote "was planned to span 40km".--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• "as accommodating higher-capacity trains was found to increase project costs by 30 per cent": found by whom? If LTA studies, "as LTA studies found that accommodating higher-capacity trains would increase project costs by 30 per cent".
  • Attributed to LTA.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

History — Construction

• "the 400 workers affected were reassigned or deported": could you confirm the source uses "deported" rather than "repatriated"? The two carry different meanings in Singaporean labour-law context.
  • The source says: More than 400 workers had been stranded by Alpine’s sudden collapse. The LTA worked with the Ministry of Manpower to help them too, by finding

new jobs for them or making arrangements to send them home. I think "repatriated" is the more accurate term.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Alpine Bau paragraph: was DTL2's completion delayed only by the bankruptcy, or were there other contributing factors? The current phrasing implies the bankruptcy was the cause but doesn't quite say so.
  • The former primarily. A source later on attributed that.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

History — Opening

• "In interviews with Today, some businesses along the line expressed hopes of increased footfall but anticipated that the bulk of their patronage would continue to come from weekday office workers and regular weekend customers.": recommend trim to "Businesses along the line interviewed by Today expressed hopes of increased footfall."?
• "Nevertheless, commuters interviewed by Channel NewsAsia praised the added convenience brought by DTL3.": "Commuters interviewed by Channel NewsAsia welcomed the added convenience of DTL3." avoids the editorial "nevertheless".
  • Fixed both above.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

History — Extensions and new stations

• "Following petitions from nearby residents advocating for the station's opening": the three citations are letters and opinion pieces. Were there formal petitions, or published calls? If the latter, "Following published calls from nearby residents for the station's opening".
  • More of published calls, though government officials also acknowledged there are plenty of petitions.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Network and operations — Service

• The MKBF paragraph gives figures of 8.15 million, 4.12 million, 2.787 million, and 8.131 million train-km across different periods and measures. Leading with the 12-month moving average (8.131 million in 2024 down to 2.787 million in 2025) and giving the quarterly figures as illustration would read more cleanly.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• "the line's total travel time is 69 minutes": end-to-end Bukit Panjang to Expo?
  • Yes.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Infrastructure — Rolling stock

• "with features such as an ergonomic curved seat design and perch seats in the gangway for wider standing space": does the source describe the seats as "ergonomic", or is that the article's word? If the latter, "with features such as curved seats and perch seats in the gangway" is safer.
  • Sources say "ergonomic".--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• "reducing overall weight and electricity consumption by about 2,000 MWh per year": does the 2,000 MWh figure refer to electricity consumption only, or to both? A small rephrase would resolve it.
  • Source states: The train also has regenerative brakes that recover energy, and lightweight converters that make it lighter than other trains in Singapore. This means that it uses less electricity. Fleet-wide, this results in about 2,000 megawatt hours of electricity savings each year, which is enough to power about 430 four-room Housing Board flats for a year.

Metalicat (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• File:MRT_Route_Map_DT.svg: what's the source of the data presented in this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Fixed the px by replacing with "upright" and also updated the source of data.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:24, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Vacant0

Will leave a review tomorrow. 09:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why there are citations in the lede? Are those claims disputed?
  • I thought claims like "longest" would need citations in the lead.
• 56 citations are categorised as "reliable", while 77 are categorised as being "government". 45 unknown. Most articles seem to have a a mix of reliable secondary sources and primary government sources so we should follow the precedent that have been applied to other GAs/FAs in this category.
• "Coloured blue on the rail map, the line serves 35 stations, all of which are underground." → "Coloured blue on the rail map, the line serves 35 underground stations".
  • Fixed.
• "The BTL was planned to be a fully underground line serving Bukit Panjang, Upper Bukit Timah, and Bukit Timah to alleviate traffic congestion along the Bukit Timah and Dunearn Road corridor." Bukit Timah seems to repeat a lot in this sentence. Is it possible to cut it down, like: "The BTL was planned to be a fully underground line serving Bukit Panjang and the Upper Bukit Timah district to alleviate traffic congestion along the Dunearn Road corridor"? Tell me what do you think.
  • Rather leave it as such for now because these are place and road names.
• "studying further extensions to the DTE, including an eastward extension to Kim Chuan Depot and a westward extension linking the line to the BTL." extension, extension, extension → "studying further additions to the DTE, including an eastward branch to Kim Chuan Depot and a westward link to the BTL."
  • Fixed.
• "To construct Telok Ayer station, a temporary viaduct was built along Cross Street to replace the lanes closed for the station's construction." tautology → "To facilitate work on Telok Ayer station, a temporary viaduct was built along Cross Street to bypass closed traffic lanes."
  • Fixed.

I'm going to take another look later, even though I do not see any other major issues within the article. Most of my concerns are related to the History section. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I gave the article another look and did not spot any other issues besides those from yesterday. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Vacant0: Did the above fixes.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Support on prose. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Whonting

Thanks Tony & Twixister for getting this here, plus all who helped this on the way. A few comments to get the ball rolling:

• The infobox gives the year as 1961-1962, while MoMA gives it just as 1962.
  • The prose says the works were created between November 1961 and June 1962 and debuted in July 1962. So the question is what is supposed to be in the infobox, regardless of what MoMA is saying. Since you are the discussant, tell me what you feel should be in the infobox in this regard.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    • I'm open to suggestions. Looking at other FAs, I see some like The Dawn of Love (painting) using year to reference when it was first exhibited. Whatever the outcome, I would like to see the ambiguity of what "Year" in the abstract representing - completion / exhibition / creation so on - eliminated. - Whonting 06:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
      • Most sources identify the paintings as dating from 1961–62, so the discrepancy may simply be an oversight on MoMA's part. Twixister (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
        • In narrative arts and musical arts, the publication date carries the day. For plays, the debut date is used. I believe that even in sculptural works, whose production often spans calendar years, it is common to use the debut date. E.g., one of my other FAs where there is a clear production span of multiple calendar years (Cloud Gate), just the debut date is used. I believe that from when I created the article in 2006 until this edit in February, it just said 1962. I'll just restore that.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

          I see your point regarding premiere or first exhibition dates being standard in some narrative, musical, and performance-based works, but visual art cataloging tends to work differently. From what I've seen, museums and art historical references usually prioritize the actual creation dates or date ranges when a work was produced, especially when production spans multiple years. Examples would include works like David (1501–1504) by Michelangelo, Portrait of Elisabeth Lederer (1914–1916), or Picasso's The Old Guitarist (1903–1904).

          In the case of Campbell's Soup Cans, it’s also a bit different from a single discrete painting because it consists of 32 individual canvases created over a span of months, so it's essentially a series rather than one work on a single canvas. That's why the broader date range feels historically more precise to me.

          It also seems a little unusual because institutions generally try to be as accurate as possible with dating, and with Warhol in particular, series that spanned multiple years are often clarified in exhibition materials and catalogues rather than collapsed into a single date.

          Maybe a compromise would be to restore the (1961–1962) in the infobox, but add a note explaining that the MoMA website uses the year of first exhibition/public presentation rather than the full production span? Twixister (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

          • I imagine this has been at issue at WP:FAC. Can some regs or admins render some guidance on this issue?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
            • I left a query at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Art_infobox_date.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
              • The best outcome from my perspective is changing the ambiguous "Year" in the infobox to "Created" or "Completed" or "Displayed". I don't quite know whether that is possible. Whonting (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
                • The problem is that the infobox is probably deployed in thousands of uses and the year may mean each of those different things in a significant percentage of the uses. You can't just change the presentation of an infobox in situations like this. We need to find out what FAC wants in the parameter.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:06, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
                  • The more that I think about it, the more I think that maybe the proper source of advice on this issue is WP:WPVA. I'll post an inquiry there.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
                    • P.S. we did get a response to our first inquiry at WT:FAC from User:HJ Mitchell with an ambiguous support for either the completion or unveiling date, which obviously could still be a controversey, although not in this case. I am hoping for more guidance from WT:WPVA.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
                      • I was definitely hoping for a clearer consensus. Only two responses came in. At, Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Art_infobox_date User:HJ Mitchell supported either "completion or unveiling date", which would both point to 1962. At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Infobox_query, User:19h00s described "dates of creation" as the more informative information for a work of art, which probably makes sense as it informs us of what movement/era influences came to bear on the work. I will go back to the range that User:Twixister had converted it to. This will remain at odds with the MoMA.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:48, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• the works marked a breakthrough for pop art can you tell me plainly what the breakthrough here is? I am skeptical that such a claim should be going in wikivoice: a breakthrough is necessarily positive, and it is not appropriate for wikivoice to be describing a development as good or bad under WP:VOICE and particularly :WP:AESTHETIC.
  • Although the challenge may have been the breakthrough, I have removed this assertion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Warhol transformed everyday packaging into high art, prompting initial controversy but eventual acclaim This is opinion, and unclear: is it saying that the high art was the work, or the cans that you could buy in the supermarket became high art? Part of the confusion is that later you say "image of a commonplace supermarket product displayed as high art".
  • Warhol's works are high art that is presented in a gallery exhibition. You could take cans off of the shelf and put them in a display that makes them sculptural in a sense which would generally be a sort of high art. Whatever subject an artist presents in the painting medium is high art. This has always been the case. Before Warhol people bought fruit from a grocer or picked it off the tree and painted it as "still life" high art. It does not make fruit bought at a grocery high art. The presentation in any visual arts medium makes it high art. It was unusual prior to Warhol to make art out of items in commercial packaging. Fruit might have been a common still life subject, but it would have been less common to see high art presenting fruit in binding or packaging marked Chiquita, Del Monte Foods, or Dole plc. Warhol decided that commercial packaging was fair game for high art.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Some clarification in-text to this effect would be helpful (subject of high art, not the cans themselves being high art). - Whonting 06:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
      • Text revised.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• complicating the work's legacy this is somewhat vague, against the guidance at MOS:DONTTEASE. In what way has it complicated the legacy?
  • I have struck the whole phrase "complicating the work's legacy and intellectual property status".-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• The scope in the lead is well laid out. I am a bit ambivalent around the article apparently being about the original 32 works as well as variations, but the infobox only covering the former, but it's probably acceptable.
  • Point taken. I don't really think it would be acceptable to have 5 or so separate presentations in the infobox.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:53, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• I don't like when the production process is put in background. It would be inappropriate for a film article to have filming and editing in a section titled "Background". inSomehow the works being exhibited today are in background.
  • Seems to be resolved in the next response.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• "Warhol once said" I understand we are limited to the sourcing, but it would be really helpful here if we understood whether this was prospective or retrospective.
  • I hope User:Twixister understands this distinction because I do not.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:12, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  I have now specified that the comment Warhol made was in 1961 as noted in the source to make the context explicit. I agree with that concern about framing in the Background section. I've addressed this by creating a dedicated Production section to cover the creation, and moved the retrospective and interpretive material into a Legacy section, where it better fits discussions of reception and longer-term influence. Twixister (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  Very good work, happy with this. - Whonting 06:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• "Warhol was also influenced by" who are we saying before this he was influenced by?
  • Are you questioning whether Cohn is the referrent of this sentence: "Warhol was also influenced by British painter Max Arthur Cohn's screen printing technique"?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:20, 26 May 2026 (UTC)*
  • It seems that he has above been influenced to create Pop Art distinct from Lichtenstein and James Rosenquist? I think it is fair to be influenced to be unlike people as much as it is to be influenced to be like them.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    • If something is your goal, I hardly think it can be considered an influence rather than purpose. Dropping "also" here should resolve this. - Whonting 06:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
      • Done.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• "British painter Max Arthur Cohn" considering Cohn migrated to the US when he was two and our article describes him as British-American, I don't quite think "British" is accurate.
  • I have removed the word British.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:20, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• "As Warhol refined his serial methods" reads as somewhat repetitive given previous sentence
  • Removed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:40, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• What in the source is supporting "which has since displayed them in various configurations, often as a grid arranged by the historical introduction dates of the soup flavors"? and "In June 1962, Warhol sent Irving Blum thirty-two 20-by-16-inch canvases"
  • To my recollection Ferus Gallery debuted them by chronological introduction in a single row, National Gallery of Art displayed them in a grid alphabetically and MoMA displays them in a grid by chronological introduction. I don't have the sources to back that up. User:Twixister may have some of those sources.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
    • If the inline source doesn't support this, and others cannot be found to, the text should be reworked. Whonting (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

      Note that you have to look at the archived version to see the details at issue. Just clicking on the current page does not support the content. I am pursuing more detail regarding what I believe was the alphabetical presentation at the National Gallery and possibly at Ferus.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• The caption calls 1342 Lexington "Warhol's former home" -- because he moved or because he died? I think we can do better.
  • Changed "former home" to "1960–74 residence".-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• We say in background "Contrary to later confusion, the original works were not silkscreens but traced and painted canvases incorporating stamped details" and then in exhibitions "Though later often described as silkscreened, the original works were hand-painted". Several aspects, such as Warhol's absence from the Ferus Gallery exhibition are being repeated.
  • User:Twixister addressed this in the 09:27, May 27, 2026 edit-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• "Rather than immediate praise" this framing is heavyhanded; we get it, it later was well-received.
  • replaced with "Initially"-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• I wonder if we can reword that the paintings were indeed sold: you later only say people had a "claim" to them which appears less than ownership.
  • Sales in art galleries are a bit unusual in the sense that galleries like to show off that they have sold the latest really cool stuff. Thus, you might have paid for a work and not be able to take possession because the gallery wants to put a red dot (indicating it has sold the item) next to it on the walls of its gallery. People don't just put expensive art in a grocery bag and take it home. Often, they have to wait for the gallery to arrange for white glove packing and shipping. I have only purchased one piece of art from a gallery in my life, but it took 62 days for delivery to occur. I bought from Miami Art Week and I live in Chicago. In my case, the dealer removed the work from the art fair to be hung elsewhere for show for several weeks. My guess is that during the Ferus show, some people purchased works for in excess of modern day $1000 prices, but they hung in the gallery marked as sold during the run of the exhibition. Claim is probably a good word for the work that you have paid for in a gallery and await a time when it is convenient for the gallery dealer to arrange to give up possession of the work.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • On further reflection, to be fair, I should not assume that delivery took so long because they just wanted to show of the sale of my purchase. In all likelihood, there was surge pricing on white glove shipping and packing for several weeks following Miami Art Week. There could be legitimate business reasons for not shipping right away, although I don't think such reasons would have affected Campbell's Soup Cans.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:46, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• "The day after, actress Marilyn Monroe died" she died that day.
  • I also corrected the chronology to note that the exhibition ended on the day Marilyn Monroe died and that Warhol began working on her portraits shortly afterward, as stated in the source. In addition, I changed "initiating his shift toward celebrity imagery" to "further expanding his exploration of celebrity imagery," since Warhol wrote in Popism that he had already experimented with portrait of Troy Donahue and Warren Beatty before Monroe's death.Twixister (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• "initiating his shift toward celebrity imagery" not supported by the source
  • User:Twixister addressed this in the 09:27, May 27, 2026 edit-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:54, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Not required for FA, but a number of sources in "Book sources" aren't used (visible with User:Ucucha/HarvErrors) or could be linked at the Internet Archive (e.g. About modern art : critical essays, 1948-1997 and The films of Andy Warhol : catalogue raisonné, many more are possible). Particularly convenient for reviewers at FAC.
• "The show had a seismic impact on the New York art world and helped cement Pop art's national prominence." The tone here is a bit too literary, and shouldn't be nicking the "seismic" imagery from the NYT.
  • I also revised "The show had a seismic impact on the New York art world and helped cement Pop art's national prominence" to "The exhibition had a major impact on the New York art world and helped establish Pop art as a nationally recognized movement." Twixister (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• What source is being used to verify "the show quickly generated debate about art, commerce, and mass production"?
  • The two subsequent sentences both have supporting facts with WP:ICs from Jack Smith (columnist) dated 2 weeks after the show opened.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Imo the Jack Smith quotes don't support there being debate, rather than the gallery proprietor giving comments defending the works as serious. - Whonting 06:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
      • Jack Smith was a journalist for the Los Angeles Times, not a gallery proprietor. I also added the citation from Artforum by Henry Hopkins along with an additional contemporary news article. I removed the reference to mass production, although the sources do discuss the relationship between art and commerce in the works.Twixister (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
        • I don't really believe that critics interpreting a work constitutes debate, and in particular don't see these themes being discussed across reviews. The requirement that sources Wikipedia:Directly supports is relevant here. Whonting (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
          • In the day, debate might have actually been how it was described. I think modern terminology would be that the topic of art, commerce, and mass production was trending. I.e., it was topical with a broad spectrum of perspectives that might at one time been called a debate, but that now might just be described as a trending topic.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
• "leading to the famous label's origin in 1898" is confusing. Label as brand or label as packaging design? "The original label was inspired by the Cornell Big Red football team uniforms." was a later design rather than original.
  • I further clarified that the 1898 date refers specifically to the introduction of the famous red-and-white Campbell's label design. Twixister (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• "the Campbell's soup can label had not changed in the previous 50 years" reads like it had changed 50 years before, which is untrue. Whonting (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Finally, I revised the sentence to read: "Small adjustments were made to the label by the time Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans were presented in 1962." Twixister (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• ATTN User:Twixister, please split out your responses to respond to each item so that we can figure out what has been addressed and what has not.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• ATTN User:Whonting, please sign with time stamp.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Can do, although I'll note it is standard practice at FA to reduce clutter with abbreviated signatures, see for instance Chimacum Creek. Whonting (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Not required under the FACR, but the archiving on sources like Choi 2012 and Liptak 2022 should be removed as they add nothing. In general, having convenience links point to ProQuest records is poor – they are less accessible than linking straight to a source, and lose aspects present in the original such as images, formatting, and corrections.
  • This seems to be two points neither of which I understand. Please elaborate further.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
• "Tensions resurfaced in 1967" were there tensions beforehand?
  • Does putting the word legal in front of tensions clarify the recurring type of tensions?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Meyer 2023 is an op-ed and shouldn't be cited for facts.
  • In the op-ed he identifies himself "As an art historian and Warhol scholar, I was asked to write an amicus brief on behalf of the Foundation." Anyone that the Warhol Foundation would request a Supreme Court Amicus Brief from is qualified to summarize either of the parties' positions, which is what this IC supports.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
• The first paragraph of Inspiration seems out of place, not referring to inspiration but production / variations
  • I have split the paragraph and WP:PRESERVEd the content in three separate locations

• Campbell's tomato soup evoked both routine and memory, blending autobiography with mass production. This kind of analysis is inappropriate for wikivoice, as is the tone. Moreover, I don't really see it as directly supported by the source, or at least the Guardian one.
• "Warhol later recalled a personal connection to Campbell's tomato soup" Warhol, who often lied about his biography, should have MOS:SAID applied more stringently here around "recalled". Indeed, on his reminiscence that "Many an afternoon at lunchtime Mom would open a can of Campbell's for me", Gopnik says "His actual childhood didn't involve... cans of Campbell's Soup". I see this is being used to support "At times, the family could not even afford to splurge on Campbell's soup" -- Gopnik makes clear that when they didn't have watered-down ketchup, they were having homemade rather than canned soup. The same in the next line "regarded as doubtful that his family had Campbell's soup often" -- the source is essentially saying never.
• "Julia was a soupmaker" homemaker?
  • "Julia was a soupmaker who could cook from scratch" -> "Julia was a homemaker who could cook soup from scratch"-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• In general this section appears quite credulous. Reviewing the sources, a more detached approach would be more accurate, reporting what was said, what the evidence for it was so on. Closer adherence to MOS:SAID would help. I can elaborate if needed.
• "Despite speculation" doesn't appear to be in the source
  • Removed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• We are again duplicating content found in other sections as we discuss the Campbell's later commercial relationship.
  • Merged these overlapping elements.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:27, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Can you provide a quote from the source supporting "intimate reference point", and explain what we are trying to say with it?
  • One of the two sources is behind a paywall. It may be that the adoption of the brand identity on personal fashion makes it intimate. I think both in the 60s and around the 50th anniversary there were several personal fashion elements (dress, Vans, and Chuck Taylors), that make this point relevant. Would a quote or a rephrasing be more relevant, if either is necessary?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
• De Kooning does use soup as a metaphor, but when we say this, we immediately justify it with him using it as a simile. "imagery" would cover both.
  • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• "there is scholarly opinion" in the source, this appears to be one notable scholar.
  • treated it as an ordinary researched fact by an art critic by removing the scholarly reference.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• The treatment in Interpretation and analysis is troubling. To begin, I don't know what is intended by distinguishing interpretation and analysis. The first sentence opens on "Warhol embraced ordinary consumer culture", which is contradicted directly by Bourdon 1989, who reacts to audiences asking "was he for or against mass production, consumerism, and advertising" with "it was not Warhol's style to take positions". The sentence itself, saying that Warhol "believed Abstract expressionism had deliberately ignored the vitality of modern life" does not appear to be in the source.
• Pausing as I am seeing a few issues with WP:TSI. Have a go at ensuring text-source integrity is achieved and I'll continue looking over. And again, well done on this article as it stands. Whonting (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Further to the above pause, I have had a look at unused book sources, and was pretty happy with the results, although Art and Appetite: American Painting, Culture, and Cuisine (2013) has extensive, unused commentary on this work that should be brought in. No comment on journals. Whonting (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
    • I have just noticed that the Chicago Public Library, does not allow this book to be checked out and they may only have one copy. I will have to see if I can make some time to get a close look at this source soon.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:17, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

      User:Whonting, Good Lord, I went to the library to have a look at this book and the index has me expecting to find 10 facts in this book. Stay tuned.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

      • Well I was not disappointed. This was an invaluable resource.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:25, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• My examinations run till the end of the month, but I'll be happy to leave comments when possible. MSincccc (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Metalicat

Reviewing as a non-specialist; the points below are general observations and questions rather than specialist objections, so please push back where I have misunderstood.

Lead

• The final sentence of paragraph 3 was hard for me to follow: On the Combined Chiefs, King advocated means to attain speedy victory in Europe First in order to execute the final reconstruction strategy for global stabilization through the central Pacific War maritime offensive in Asia. I struggled to parse "final reconstruction strategy for global stabilization" as a non-specialist. Would something like On the Combined Chiefs, King supported the "Europe first" strategy as a means to swift victory in Europe, with the central Pacific maritime offensive to follow as the path to victory over Japan work? Open to a different formulation if I have misread the underlying claim.

  I think is is too easy to misread. I have changed it to "On the Combined Chiefs, King advocated a speedy victory in Europe under the "Europe first" strategy, a maritime offensive in the Central Pacific, and assistance to China in Asia" which I think is clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• "Europe First" appears in the lead and the War in Europe section but is not wikilinked, and the capitalisation differs from the Wikipedia article at Europe first (lowercase). I would suggest wikilinking on first mention and matching the lowercase form with quotation marks: the "Europe first" strategy. - If this is indeed the correct way.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Never preoccupied with land operations, King stood out as the paramount voice in advancing the naval view of global strategy. "Paramount" reads strong in Wikipedia's voice; if this is paraphrasing a specific historian, in-text attribution might help.

  Deleted "paramount". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Early life

• He decided to go to work rather than high school: small thing, but He decided to go to work rather than attend high school reads slightly more natural.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• King hoped to find adventure, seeking orders to the cruiser Cincinnati: the participial structure was slightly awkward to me; King hoped to find adventure and sought orders to the cruiser Cincinnati would split it cleanly.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• However, he upset many superiors by being cocky, perhaps excessively confident, and certainly uninterested in fitting in...: the "perhaps excessively confident" parenthetical reads as an authorial hedge rather than source-attributed characterisation. Is this Buell's or Kohnen's own qualifier, or is it Wikipedia's?

  Buell: "In addition to his drinking, King's tempestuous behavior repeatedly provoked his senior officers. What King regarded as forthrightness, they regarded as stubbornness, belligerence and arrogant insubordination." Two examples follow, including the one with Rodman.

  Kohnen: "Drunk and missing his cap upon appearing at the quarterdeck with his collar undone, the executive officer on Cincinatti, Lt. Cmdr. Hugh Rodman, threatened to see King Dismissed from the service. Rodman barked a series of insults, which prompted King to respond impertinently"

  I had originally wrote: "Bouts of heavy drinking led to King being put under hatches, and a forthright and arrogant attitude bordering on insubordination led to adverse comments in his fitness reports" but another editor changed it to the text above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

World War I

• King was the last to continue this tradition.: last what? Last serving officer? Last to do so in the US Navy? A couple of extra words would help.

  The source says: "paradoxically, a very junior officer who was a fervent Anglophobe -- was the only one of them who persisted all his life in wearing that affrontive jacket pocket hankie memento." Re-worded. (The hands in packets stance in the image is also in emulation of Beatty.)Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Compare the infobox portrait with that of David Beatty, 1st Earl Beatty. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Commander in Chief, U.S. Fleet

• Legend has it that King said: "When they get into trouble, they call for the sons-of-bitches.": "Legend has it" is informal; An often-repeated story holds that King said... or similar might fit Wikipedia voice better.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• The Dauntless cost paragraph: the Roosevelt quotation about "Saint George" needed a footnote or aside for me to realise this referred to Marshall. A non-specialist might miss it.

  Added name in brackets. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Joint Chiefs of Staff

• King had thirty-two official meetings with Roosevelt at the White House in 1942, but only eight in 1943, nine in 1944 and just one in 1945.: striking statistic, but the article doesn't tell the reader what to make of it. Was this a function of the JCS structure, of changing presidential attention, of King falling out of favour, or of wartime travel patterns? Even one sentence of interpretation would help.

• @Metalicat: Leahy as chief of staff to the president + grand strategy being set. Leahy gradually replaced Hopkins as the president's principal advisor from 1944 on. Added a sentence of explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Relations with the British

• Such a characterization failed to reflect the historical understanding and deeper commitment King demonstrated as a strategist...: this reads as Wikipedia voice doing rebuttal work; attributing it explicitly to Kohnen would strengthen the framing.

That is what I have. Happy to be corrected on any of these. A very interesting article. Metalicat (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Image caption "King stands behind Roosevelt at the Octagon Conference in Quebec in September 1944." Some readers may not know what Roosevelt looks like; and even those that do have to pick 1 of 2 people who are kinda behind Roosevelt . Consider "Standing 3rd (4th?) from left" or similar.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• "When he examined the war plan in the safe, he found it was for a war with Mexico." - Some may read "the war plan" to mean the ship's current, valid plan. Consider rewording to "When he examined the safe, he found an old plan for a war with Mexico." or similar.

  I was the current, valid war plan. Just not for the right war. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• "... had Willson retired in August 1942 due to heart conduction " Is that supposed to be "a heart condition"? Even if the source says "conduction" (meaning an electrical issue with the heart) no reader will know that, so consider a wikilink or more understandable term.

  Changed to "due to a heart condition". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Source details? Patterson, William H. Mr. Science. p. 365. Can more details be added (e.g. publisher name? external link?) so curious readers can track-down the book?

  I cannot find this book. Removed the quote, replaced with something I can source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Morison 1947, pp. 94. P/PP error

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Is this big quote essential for the article?

  He expounded on the theory that America's weakness was representative democracy: "Historically, despite Washington's (and others') experienced and cogent advice to make due preparations for war, it is traditional and habitual for us to be inadequately prepared. This is the combined result of a number of factors, the character of which is only indicated: democracy, which tends to make everyone believe that he knows it all; the preponderance (inherent in democracy) of people whose real interest is in their own welfare as individuals; the glorification of our own victories in war and the corresponding ignorance of our defeats (and disgraces) and of their basic causes; the inability of the average individual (the man in the street) to understand the cause and effect not only in foreign but domestic affairs, as well as his lack of interest in such matters. Added to these elements is the manner in which our representative (republican) form of government has developed as to put a premium on mediocrity and to emphasize the defects of the electorate already mentioned."

  That's a large paragraph. It looks like the source is a primary source: a work by King, correct? Meaning a biographer did not quote that passage? (1) The article should be in encyclopedia's voice, quote only if it is super important; (2) if no 2ndary source emphasiszes that quote, it is sorta OR for a WP editor to select it for special emphasis; (3) the article is rather large, so any quotes should be small, unless there is a compelling reason. Consider replacing the quote with a paraphrase in encyclopedia's voice.

  The quote is from King's essay. It is the subject of commentary in the secondary sources. Rather than quote them or editorialise in Wikipedia's voice, I chose to use King's own words. The problem is that what critics regarded as shocking twenty years ago now sounds more like common sense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Confusing: "Stories of and about the popular image of King often obscured the remarkable history underlying the pivotal events, which later shaped his command persona within the context of the U.S. Naval services in his era. Fidelity to the service also required fidelity within the context of the service monoculture. King's wife and seven children usually accompanied him to his various assignments ashore. King purchased several homes, along the way."
  1. I'm not sure what this is trying to tell me: "Stories of and about the popular image of King often obscured the remarkable history underlying the pivotal events" It's as if a key sentence after this have been deleted. Can some words be added to explain what was so "remarkable" and what "obscured" what?
  2. I have no idea what this is telling me: "Fidelity to the service also required fidelity within the context of the service monoculture." Can it be re-worded in plainer terms so lay reader can understand?
  3. So what? "King purchased several homes, along the way." Isn't that common for military personnel, at least ones that can afford it? Is the article trying to tell the reader that King kept ownership of all the home and accumulated a lot of real estate wealth? In any case, consider adding words to explain why this sentence is significant.

  Deleted this paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• ... In progress ... Noleander (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments by A.Cython

Overall an excellent written biography of an important navy officer in WWII. I have some minor comments from a casual reader.

• his remarkable authorities as is "authority" better?

  Tightened this sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• arrend high school spelling?

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• in white naval uniform in a white

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• who saw it a challenge who saw it as a challenge

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• formulating strategy formulating a strategy

  I think we'll keep it as it is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• the multiple complexity either "the complexity" or "the multiple complexities"

  Cannot change this as it is a quotation. (MOS:SIC) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• biography on official biography on the official

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• after they died the add comma before "the"

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• securing the sustainable remove "the"

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• add {{clear}} right after goods to British ports. as the figure is displacing the subsection title

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• (The present was a framed photograph.) is the parenthesis needed?

  I guess not. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• DCNO (Air) acronyms if not used then there is no need to define them
  • the same goes for "OIC"

    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• King's great personal I feel "great" can be viewed as subjective and thus not needed

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

A.Cython(talk) 04:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I found King a difficult subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:FADM_Ernest_J._King.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto

  Added a new source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• File:Atlantic_Conference_Between_Prime_Minister_Winston_Churchill_and_President_Franklin_D_Roosevelt_10_August_1941_A4817.jpg

  Works for me. Oh I see. Adjusted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• File:King,_Forrestal,_Nimitz_1945.jpg

  Updated link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• File:Kingfull.jpg

  Updated. No objection to replacing with File:Tombstone of Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King at Annapolis.jpg

• File:NH_41834_RADM_Philip_Andrews,_Secretary_Curtis_D._Wilbur,_CAPT_Ernest_J._King,_and_LT_Henry_Hartley_during_salvage_work_of_USS_S-4.jpg: source link is for a different image

  Corrected link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• File:ADSM_A.png is missing a tag for the design. Ditto File:Legion_Honneur_GC_ribbon.svg, File:GRE_Order_of_George_I_-_Grand_Cross_BAR.png, File:Order_of_Orange-Nassau_ribbon_-_Knight_Grand_Cross.svg, File:Order_of_Naval_Merit_-_Grand_Officer_(Brazil)_-_ribbon_bar.png, File:BEL_Kroonorde_Grootofficier_BAR.svg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  No idea what is required here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  What are the copyright statuses of the award designs? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  They fall below the threshold of originality in the United States. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  If that's the case, why would reproducing them garner a copyright? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  Reproduction does not garner a copyright. I have tagged them with template:PD-ribbon Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Agree that article is in good shape and source and image reviews are still current. I went looking to find if Evening Despatch (fn 80) should pipe to Birmingham Mail and found the article in question in question at , so you can link to it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:04, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Tim riley

Booking my place. More tomorrow, I hope. Tim riley talk 20:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Just a handful of exceedingly minor drafting points:

• "Equerry in Waiting … an Extra Equerry" – not sure why these job titles are capitalised when, e.g., "aide-de-camp" and "pages of honour" are not.

I get tripped up by WP:JOBTITLE quite a bit, decapitalised all these.

• "Prince Edward acceded to the throne … Prince Edward's accession" – I can't remember seeing the future Edward VII referred to as "Prince Edward" anywhere else. It is accurate, of course, but it looks decidedly odd. One might expect "the Prince of Wales".

Changed both of these to "Prince of Wales"

• "benefitted from the general's patronage" – "benefitted" is not wrong but "benefited" is preferable: see the current edition of Fowler, p. 104: benefited is the recommended spelling of the past tense and past participle of the verb benefit. The Oxford English Dictionary admits only "benefited", although Chambers admits both forms.

Changed to benefited

• "mentioned in despatches" – isn't the normal form "mentioned in dispatches"? It is certainly how the phrase is spelled in our Wikipedia article.

The British military (and the London Gazette in which mentions are published) continues to use "Mentioned in Despatches" , I presume a carry over from an old spelling

• "Sekhukhune had refused to accept British rule following their annexation" – "their" referring to whom? Grammatically it doesn't belong with "British rule".

I removed "following their annexation" and added "recently-annexed" before the first mention of Transvaal which I think should resolve this

• "no obligation to serve outside of Natal" – is the "of" needed?

Removed

• "invaluable to him as an advisor" – curious Americanism: one might expect the traditional BrE "adviser"

I'm British but for some reason always use "advisor", but not particular preference. Have switched to "adviser".

• "daughter of Reverend Charles Thornhill" – needs a definite article before "Reverend".

Added

That's all from me. I'll look in again and hope to be able to add my support. Tim riley talk 09:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Tim riley. Thanks for your review and correction of a couple of typos in the article, I've responded to your comments above - Dumelow (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Happy to support the promotion of this article to FA. It is a good read, of suitable length, balanced, widely referenced from sources old and new and decently illustrated (though the miracle-workers at the Graphics Lab may be able to improve both the photographs if you ask). Meets the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 11:51, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Good idea, I have posted a request over at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop - Dumelow (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment. File:The_Zulu_War;_The_Intrenched_Position_at_Rorke's_Drift_(1_%26_2)_merged_and_cropped.jpg has a template error that should be corrected. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. The Graphics Lab also came back to my request and retouched the two portraits - Dumelow (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

RandomEdits

Hi TBJ, I see you're in a similar boat as me in that we've both submitted a FAC about a week ago and not got any responses yet. If you could have a look at mine that'd be greatly appreciated, but either way I'll be reviewing this over the next few days to see if we can get the ball rolling here. :) RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Comments to follow. MSincccc (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Background

• Could we drop {{main article|Edith Maryon}} and link her in the article prose?

• Added the link. I prefer to keep the hat note along with it, which signals that there's a full article on the topic. (Well, it'll be truly full when I finally get around to expanding the one on Maryon.) --Usernameunique (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • This is overlinking to have a section begin with "Main article: Theo Faiss Theo Faiss was..." The link in prose – here as the very first words of the section – indicates there's a full article on the topic. Both links are also in the first two sentences of the lead. Please just use one or the other. — Reywas92^Talk 14:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Also, how about introducing a link to Works of Edith Maryon in running prose, even though the "See also" works just as well?

• Done; same comment as above re the hat note. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Link to Geneva?

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Maryon was interested in the esoteric
  • Any links or footnotes which might explain "esoteric" in this context?
• After a brief return in April to London due to health and finances,
  • Do we intend to say she was ill and ran out of money?
    • Yeah, though I'm not sure it's really needed here. The stint in London is (as discussed in the last paragraph of the section "Theo Faiss", her locations in 1914 are important given what happened with Theo and Albert Faiss that year), but I've removed the reasons for the return. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• The parents had lived in Stuttgart in 1904
  • How about "His parents..."?
    • "The" is used because the prior sentence refers to two people, two of whom are male. Though I think "His" would be grammatically sound, "The" avoids any confusion as to whether Theo's or Albert's parents are the subject of the sentence. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• We could link to pneumonia.

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• "was interested in the esoteric at least as early as 1909" → "was interested in the esoteric by 1909"

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• "came back to Dornach" → "returned to Dornach"

• I would agree, but "return" is already used in that sentence: After a brief return to London in April, Maryon came back to Dornach around June or July. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• "among other contributions while there," → "among other contributions,"

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Theo Faiss was born in Brazil on 1 July 1907, as the first of four children of Albert and Ida Faiss.
  • We could drop "as" here.
• In the first half of 1913 they settled in Dornach in order to be near an anthroposophical institute
  • Drop "in order to"?
• By dusk, however, he had not returned;
  • Do we need "however" here?
    • Removed. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• "involved much of the town, and came across" → "a search involving much of the town came across"

• There's another word in the quotation ("soon involved much of the town"), which is meant to show how the search quickly grew as time went by. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• "rather than an accident of coincidence" → "rather than a coincidence"

• I think both parts are important. Steiner expressly disclaimed the idea that Faiss died due to accident or coincidence; he claimed that the number of coincidences required to make the death an accident were too numerous and implausible, and that the only logical explanation was that Faiss was drawn to that spot as part of a voluntary/karmic sacrifice. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• "during which time he offered protection to the Goetheanum" →"during which he offered protection to the Goetheanum"

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• The interpretation relies on Steiner's belief that humans form and develop
  • Do we need both "form" and "develop"?
    • Nope, axed "form". --Usernameunique (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Link to mantram?

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• then still under construction
  • Do we need both "then" and "still"?
    • Nope. Axed "still". --Usernameunique (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks as always, MSincccc. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Description

• Raab suggests that the second version is the later of the two.
  • Drop "of the two"?
    • Went with postdates the first, which reads a bit more naturally to me while still being tighter. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• "suggested to be either Faiss and his parents, or Faiss, his mother, and Steiner" → "suggested to depict either Faiss and his parents, or Faiss, his mother, and Steiner"

• depicts is already used in the sentence's first clause (The bottom third depicts three individuals), so changing be to depict would be a bit clunky and (I think) technically change the meaning (from depicts people who are X, to depicts people who in turn depict Y). --Usernameunique (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• suggested to be either Faiss and his parents, or Faiss, his mother, and Steiner.
  • Do we need the commas here?
    • Not sure we can do away with all three—the first indicates a separation between two interpretations, and the second and third are dost separators. But I'm open to any suggested recordings you have. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• "The second version of the relief is a variant of the first" → "The second version is a variant of the first"

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• "the guardian spirit lifting up the spiritual form of Faiss" → "the guardian spirit lifting the spiritual form of Faiss"

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Crystal Drawers

Review to come soon. Crystal Drawers 🎖️ ^{(wanna talk?)} 15:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Reywas92

• Similar to points raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Dance of Anitra/archive1, the Background section is excessively long and makes up more than half of the article – ~1177 words vs. ~985 words in the following three sections. The WP:FACR criterion #4 says the article must "stay focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate". I see you also recently created Theo Faiss, which is almost entirely a copy-paste of this section. If that is going to exist as its own article, this one needs to be trimmed substantially, making proper use of summary style instead of being a WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE. This article does not need the full text of the eulogy's mantram or most of the details, and/or the Theo article should be merged back.

• The genesis of the article on Theo Faiss is no secret; the edit history reads "text largely copied from In Memory of Theo Faiss", and it was done due to Kusma's comment during the good-article review that there is too much detail about Theo Faiss here. I'm open to, and have thought about, cutting down the mantram, given the amount of real estate it takes up. At the same time, we have to remember its importance to the relief, which Raab suggests is the sculptural embodiment of the mantram (note the guardian angel in both, and the beseeching figures in the first version, which echo the mantram's mention of imploring love and entreaties). Perhaps for that reason, the mantram it was specifically identified as an item to keep in that good-article review. If you have specific suggestions about what could stand cutting here, however, please feel free to make them. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• As was noted at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Serpent labret with articulated tongue/archive1, citations are not actually needed after every single sentence. Raab pp. 250–253 is cited eleven times in eleven sentences in the Description section. This is ridiclous WP:OVERCITE and goes against Wikipedia:When to cite#Text–source relationship ("If you write a multi-sentence paragraph that draws on material from one source, the source need not be cited after every single sentence unless the material is particularly contentious.") and Wikipedia:Inline citation#Citation density ("Everything in that paragraph deals with the same, single subject from the same source and can therefore be supported by a single inline citation.")
• The Description, Themes, and Provenance section contains dozens of footnotes, numbers 50–84 used 73 times. But these are all simply Raab pp. 249–254; von Halle 2010 and 2011a, b, c (which are the same piece, translated and split/duplicated into multiple issues); Sam 2007 p. 10 (which I can't access online); and Steiner. Except von Halle 2010/11a and 2011b do not mention Maryon's artwork, nor does Steiner, being a primary source that predates the artwork. The only sources that discuss the article's subject are a few pages of Raab's biography of Edith Maryon, a portion of von Halle's essay, and one page by Sam 2007! This page feels more like a ref bomb bloated by background and heavily reliant on one source (Raab) rather than a notable topic and featured article.

• Stating that von Halle 2010/11a ... do not mention Maryon's artwork overlooks the rather glaring fact that Maryon's artwork literally provides the cover art for the book. von Halle includes a long discussion of the relief and its meaning, which should be obvious from the fact that her books are cited throughout the "Description" and "Themes" sections. You've also truncated the page range for Raab, who spends a substantial portion of a chapter on the relief. Put simply, the only reason to question notability would appear to be by misreading of the sources (or by not reading them; Raab and von Halle 2010 are not available online, and only a chapter of von Halle 2011a is). --Usernameunique (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
  • My apologies, I did not realize that the 2011a link was only one chapter of 2010. I'd recommend linking the 2010 book here in the citation even if the text is not available online. The relevant chapter in Raab appears to be at 249-254 based on the citations, and other pages appear to reference other material. In the Description section von Halle is only cited in conjunction with Raab, but I did read the discussion of its themes in 2011c with the help of Google Translate. I obviously don't think the page should be deleted, but it does seem unusual for an FA to really only have two sources go into depth on the subject while the numerous other sources only provide background, largely by or about Rudolf Steiner (another interesting read). — Reywas92^Talk 19:23, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
    • No worries. I'm not sure what the link you're suggesting is; the ISBN is already provided. As for the numver of sources, I don't see it as that unusual to have only a few treating the subject of the article in depth. Guilden Morden boar (two two-page articles; my own nomination) comes to mind, and I suspect there are many FAs on flora/fauna that rely on one main article describing them. In any event, there is no FA standard of "extra notability". --Usernameunique (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

As for Raab, the relevant discussion begins in a subsection that opens page 246. The first few pages provide background on Faiss, but literally the only reason they're included is because Maryon created a memorial to him. (If you want any of the sources, just email me and I'd be happy to send them over.) --Usernameunique (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks, Reywas92. I'll respond in kind above, but, given your invocation of The Dance of Anitra, it's worth noting here that you have also spent the day deleting sources and cites from serpent labret with articulated tongue (which I recently nominated here), and dropping a long note on the talk page about its citations; seeing your username attached to this review on my watchlist, I was therefore pretty sure what tenor it would strike even before taking a look. Not quite sure what inspired this survey of my recent nominations (let alone ones that have passed), but I'm happy to have a good-faith discussion over the points you raised above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I didn't "spend the day" doing that, it only took a few minutes. It was on the main page and although I found the topic and the article very interesting, it thought it was odd that so much was sourced to the Met's page on the piece and that the footnote was unnecessarily repeated consecutively. I deleted unnecessary redundant footnotes of the same citation to no detriment to verifiability, not sourcing generally. I was curious about Aztec art – I've been to Templo Mayor mentioned in the article – and saw these other pieces in your edits. These are fascinating topics to learn about and I come in good faith, but some of the style and sourcing here is unorthodox. — Reywas92^Talk 18:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

    Sounds good, thanks Reywas92. Look forward to discussing above. You're luckier (or a better planner) than me—when I tried to visit Tepmlo Mayor last year I was dumb enough to not look at the closing time beforehand, and was met with locked gates. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Vacant0

Will review this next week. Btw, Djukanović (2023) is unused but is listed in the sources section. It should either be incorporated into the article or removed from the list. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Removed. -- Tomobe03 (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose atm. Sadly, I don't think that it meets the 1a criteria. It's prose isn't "brilliant" or "professional", there's repetitive syntax, timeline trailing, and pleonasms. I'll give some examples:

• "The creation of Yugoslavia refers to the events resulting in the creation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later renamed Yugoslavia) as a political union of the South Slavs in 1918." there's a repetition of a defining word twice in the same sentence, doesn't sound polished. Suggestion: "The creation of Yugoslavia refers to the political and military events that culminated in the establishment of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in 1918."
• "Those events, which occurred in the dissolution of Austria-Hungary at the end of the First World War, were based on Yugoslavism." events do not occur "in" a dissolution. Change "occurred in" to "unfolded during".
• "The State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was pressured by the loss of territory to an Italian advance across Istria and in Dalmatia, the threatened establishment of Greater Serbia amid violence by the Green Cadres, social unrest and rumours about a coup conspiracy." too much for one sentence, should be split in two.
• "This state was intended through the realisation of Yugoslavism and unification with the Kingdom of Serbia." → "Proponents envisioned achieving this state by realising the ideals of Yugoslavism and unifying with the Kingdom of Serbia".
• "The concept ... was considered neutral about the possibility of centralised or decentralised government in a common state." not neutral about "was considered agnostic toward the choice between a centralised or decentralised government"
• "The council declared itself the central organ of the newly-proclaimed State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, encompassing the Slovene Lands, Croatia-Slavonia, Dalmatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, on 18 October" on 18 October should be at the start.
• "The declaration left unresolved the choice between a unitary state (advocated by Pašić) or a federation, supported by Trumbić." → "the choice between a unitary state (advocated by Pašić) and a federation (advocated by Trumbić).
• "might be divided among Italy and Serbia" divided between Italy and Serbia
• "Social disorder associated with the Green Cadres and the widespread belief, especially prevalent in northern Croatia..." widespread and prevalent mean the same thing, drop one of the modifiers.

I'll stop right there. Others have also left good examples. IMO, the best route would be to go through GOCE -> GA -> PR and then come back to FAC. You can ping me at PR for more comments. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the comments above. I have tried to address the issues you raised in order to improve the article. I'm looking forward to any further comments. Tomobe03 (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Bgsu98

I find this topic very interesting, especially as I am currently working on Yugoslav Figure Skating Championships. I hope to find some time over the next few days to examine your article and provide feedback. If I have not by the end of the weekend, please feel free to remind me! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Lead

• I’m going to be honest: I don’t like the first paragraph. Perhaps something along the lines of: ”The creation of Yugoslavia occurred in 1918, after the dissolution of Austria-Hungary at the end of World War I, when the South Slavs formed the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, which was later renamed Yugoslavia.” If you want to mention that this was based on the idea of Yugoslavism, I recommend a brief explanation so a reader doesn’t have to navigate to another article to understand the basic concept. Since this is a very short paragraph, you could connect it with the second paragraph.
• “encompassing South Slavic parts of disintegrating Austria-Hungary” —> I would get rid of the “disintegrating”.
• “…on the degree of centralisation of the future state.” —> I don’t understand what this even means.
• I would join the last two paragraphs of the lead together.

Yugoslavism

• I believe “empire” should be capitalized.
• “This state was intended through the realisation of Yugoslavism and unification with the Kingdom of Serbia.[2] The concept, expressing the idea that the South Slavs belonged to a single "race", were of "one blood" and had one shared language, was considered neutral about the possibility of centralised or decentralised government in a common state.” —> I would move the definition of Yugoslavism (the idea that the South Slavs belonged to a single "race", were of "one blood" and had one shared language) to immediately after “Yugoslavism” and before “unification”, perhaps separated with dashes. Then, “The concept was considered neutral about the possibility of a centralised or decentralised government in a common state.”

National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs

• “as a representative body aiming to achieve independence from the empire.” —> recommend “seeking (or advocating for) independence” rather than “aiming to achieve”.

Yugoslav Committee

• “and produced the Corfu Declaration about the shared objective of South Slav unification in a constitutional monarchy.” —> replace “about” with something, perhaps “which addressed”.
• “ The declaration left unresolved the choice between a unitary state (advocated by Pašić) or a federation, supported by Trumbić.” —> One aside is offset by parentheses; the other by a comma. Pick one for consistency.
• Recommend wikilinking Ante Trumbić in the image caption.
• “ It learned about the Treaty of London, where the Allies offered Italy substantial Austro-Hungarian territories with sizeable Croat and Slovene populations…” —> The past perfect (“It had learned…” and “the Allies had offered…”) is needed here.
• “ This led its leaders to conclude that Croatian lands, known as the Triune Kingdom, might be divided among Italy and Serbia…” —> If they had genuinely concluded, then the phrasing should be “would be divided” and not “might be divided”.

Kingdom of Serbia

• Is Prince Regent a title where both words are capitalized, because it is not when you use it earlier in the lead.
• “across the Danube and Sava rivers (Serbia's pre-war border with Austria-Hungary).” —> Recommend replacing the parentheses with a colon.

User:Tomobe03: I am only through the first section, and there are already more substantive issues with the prose than I would normally expect in an article at FAC. I will come back to examine the next section, but this should give you something to work with. Please let me know once you have had a chance to examine my comments or if you have any questions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to provide feedback. I have tried to address the issues you raised above and I'm looking forward to any further comments you might provide. Tomobe03 (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I will take a look at what you've done with this section, and then examine the next one. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Kralj_aleksandar1.jpg: source link is dead; when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Stojan_protic.jpg

• File:NikolaPasic--balkancockpitpol00pric_0191.png needs a US tag. Ditto File:Velika-narodna-skupstina-1918.jpg, File:Spiridon_Špiro_Bocarić_-_Atanasije_Šola.jpg, File:Borbe_kod_Podgorice_između_crnogorskih_pobunjenika_i_srpske_vojske_1918..jpg
• File:Liposcak2.JPG needs a US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I believe I have fixed the Lipošćak image, and will get to others shortly. Tomobe03 (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I believe all the image licencing issues are addressed now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• 1st sentence is a bit clunky. "The creation of Yugoslavia refers to the events resulting in ..." . See MOS:REFERS which says "Avoid constructions like "[Subject] refers to ..." or "... is a word for ..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject."

• This topic is rather complex, in the sense that there are many, many events, individuals, groups, factions, motivations, and countries. I'm not sure yet how to simplify the body ... but the lead must be simplified: the number of nouns/people/places introduced in the Lead is overwhelming. No lay reader will be able to grasp it. Consider re-writing entire lead to give more of a big-picture overview; resist the temptation to name individuals and events in the lead. Strive to paint an overview that a 17 year old can read and understand. Then, save the gory details for the body. See MOS:INTRO which says "It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Make the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article."

• I note that the article has not been through the WP:GA process. Is it also correct that it has not been through the WP:PEER REVIEW process? Neither of those are required before nominating for FA, but are recommended.

• I'm finding the body text to be rather hard to follow: so many things are introduced without context. FA criterion 1a says " [article is] well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard". Tentatively, I'd say the article does not satisfy that criterion.

• P vs PP errors in cites:
  • Ramet 2006, pp. 43. P/PP error? pp. 43.;
  • Banac 1984, p. 134-135. P/PP error? p. 134-135.; Hyphen in pg. range;

• Alphabetize sources: The source "Karaula, Željko (2008)" is not in the correct alphabetical order.

• Oppose for now. The article's material contains a solid basis of facts, but it is not screaming "Wikipedia's best content!" at me. The prose is overly dense and many paragraphs/sections jump immediately into detail without transitioning and/or giving context. The article does not give a narrative that lay readers can follow ... yet this is an important story, so it could and should. A GA or PR review might be helpful. Or, if you make significant changes in response to FAC comments from Bgsu98 above, ping me and I'll take another look. Noleander (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Noleander thank you for commenting on the article. I have tried to address the issues you and others raised and I'm looking forward to any further comments you may have. Tomobe03 (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

LivelyRatification

Hello, I'm going to do a review of the article prose. As this is still one of my first contributions to FAC I will refrain from supporting or opposing explicitly until I am more confident in my understanding of the criteria.

FM

• Some preliminary comments. There are some WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:

• As noted above, the gallery seems puzzling. WP:galleries states images should be incorporated into the text where possible, and in this case the article body is almost free of images, so I don't see the need of having a gallery when there is plenty of room across the article.

  Did the duplicate links. I don't think any of these images conveys a lot of section specific information, plus their purpose means that a gallery is the most suitable place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

HF

Will review soon. Hog Farm _Talk 22:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• "(4.9228 ± 0.0077 sq mi)" - this degree of precision seems excessive and almost certainly implies a degree of exactness in the original measurement that isn't present
• "enter Laguna Miscanti from the north, east and south[15] (Quebrada de Chaquisoqui[1])" - is this trying to indicate that the southern dry valley is Quebrada de Chaquisoqui? This isn't clear
• "The water[d] is clear[20] and brackish,[e],[19]" - is there a reason for the comma between the [e] and [19]?
• " Some water drains underground into to the 10 metres (33 ft) lower Miñiques" - I don't think this is grammatical ("into to the") and reads very stilted as well. Something like "Some water drains underground into Laguna Miñiques, which is 10 metres (33 ft) lower in elevation" might be better.
• I think the number of endnotes (27!) is a touch excessive, and I don't think all of these are even needed. For instance -

• "W.E.Rudolph in 1963 postulated that Miscanti and Miñiques were merely at an early stage of a process of salt lake formation. Salt accumulation increases the surface over which evaporation takes place, until the waterbodies dry up." (current note [f]) - do any more recent sources follow this? If this is just a theory from 60+ years ago that turned out to be wrong, I don't think it really warrants inclusion in the article. Sometimes sources just end up being wrong
• "Charophytes and diatoms.[31]" (current note [g]) seems like something to just move into the article body as the body's phrasing of "organism remnants" is unclear to the lay reader and make more sense with linked referenced to show what type of stuff this is
• "At the fault, ignimbrites are pushed over Tertiary rocks of the Quepe Formation." (current note [k]) - this is getting quite far from the actual topic of the article and I don't think is necessary for an article about the lake.

• "and volcanic tephra layers[i].[33]" - isn't the practice to have punctuation before the notes and references?
• "In the past, Laguna Miscanti more than twice as large as it is today" - missing a word?

I don't think the prose is quite there yet - it's choppy, with grammatical issues, and problems with punctuation and syntax placement. Part of the problem is honestly related to the sometimes-awkward placement of the large number of references and endnotes. A lot of this seems driven by a tendency to include every scrap of information, no matter how minute - for instance the endnote for the apparently isolated prediction by Rudolph from the 1960s. The FA criteria are "it no major facts or details and places the subject in context" and " It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate".

For instance, what about some of the following things to reduce the citation density?

• "of Chile's[6] Antofagasta Region,[7]" - ref [7] shows an inset map showing the Antofagasta Region as part of Chile (and Laguna Miscanti as part of the Antofagasta Region), so is having an additional reference [6] to support it being in Chile necessary?
• "which is accessible by a rough[13] unpaved road and numerous footpaths[14] leading to Laguna Miñiques.[15]" - is the existence of ref [13] just to support that the unpaved road is rough? I don't think that is a necessary level of detail, it's pretty much implied by the idea of an unpaved mountain road, and has a source from 20 years ago so even if it were no longer accurate (the local government improved the road so that it were less rough) we wouldn't be able to update that information, anyway.
• "A road departing from the Paso Sico international road[b] goes to Miscanti,[11][12] which is accessible by a rough[13] unpaved road and numerous footpaths[14] leading to Laguna Miñiques.[15]" - and the more I think about this, the less I'm sure what this is trying to say. The first half of the basic sentence is saying that Miscanti is accessible by the road department from the Paso Sico road, but then we're told in the second half of the sentence that there's a rough unpaved road and numerous footpaths which are what get you to Miscanti. The phrasing of the second half of the sentence also is unclear if the "rough unpaved road" leads to Miniques, or just the footpaths. Running the relevant part of [14] through Google Translate seems to be saying that the "rough unpaved road" is the same road that branches off of the Paso Sico road, but in the article we're presenting these roads as if they were separate things.

I'm going to have to enter into an oppose for now based on the prose. I think the issue with the (not readily apparent) repitition of the road information is a pretty good indication of the sort of issues which are here. Hog Farm _Talk 23:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I did resolve the issues here and several more, but I guess that this requires more than that? As usual, the problem is that while FAC isn't the place for extensive prose discussion, there isn't really any other (other than the ChatGPT advice) than actually works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Just adding a comment, but ChatGPT and many LLM tools aren't really best judges for evaluating quality of prose, especially for isolated passages when the context is lacking.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 05:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

It is however better than nothing; also, I used ChatGPT to review the entire article text en bloc using a prompt that Esculenta wrote and which I put a copy on my talk page on, not isolated passages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Striking oppose for now as there have been significant improvements regarding the handling of the endnotes ... There are other things ahead of this on my to-review list but I will get back to this when I can. Hog Farm _Talk 06:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• "Miscanti is one of the largest water bodies of the Atacama Altiplano" - link to Altiplano as this is the first usage in the body?

  OK, although it's also linked in the first few sentences of the lead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• "The Cordon de Puntas Negras is the main source of Laguna Miscanti's water" - to most readers, I think this would imply that runoff from these mountains into the lake is the main source, but we've already been told earlier in the article that there are no streams into Miscanti and that most of the lake's inflow is from groundwater. So this sentence is rather confusing, unless it's a very roundabout way of saying that the Cordon de Puntas Negras water ends up as groundwater and then flows/seeps into Miscanti?

  Yeah, moved this up and recast it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• "separating the Western Cordillera from the Cordillera Domeyko,[22][14] Volcanoes[22] including Lascar[51]" - should the comma after Domeyko be a period?

  Done and recast this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• "The lakes Laguna Lejia,[22] Laguna Miscanti and Laguna Miñiques occupy basins formed by[23][13][22] the Pliocene and Pleistocene[18] reactivation[22] of the 100 km (62 mi) long[44] Quebrada Nacimiento[18] or Miscanti fault[45] west of Laguna Miscanti.[29]" - 10 citations associated with a single sentence is so dense that it affects readability. There is surely some citation placement optimization and/or rephrasing that can be done. For instance - is the [22] after Laune Lejia necessary if the following citation cluster also includes [22]?

  Merged them a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• "Depending on the season, it is brought by the summer monsoon, weather fronts or cutoff lows" - the link at cutoff lows is currently a redlink, is Cut-off low the link you are looking for?

  Yes, changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• "About 18,000 years ago[14] during the Last Glacial Maximum, conditions became colder[63] and drier than present-day[64] and colder, leading to a total disappearance of vegetation[63] and a drying of the lake between 22,000 and 14,000 years ago.[65]" - I don't think we need to say twice within this single sentence that it was getting colder

  Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Given that you're later using CAPE I and CAPE II as abbreviations, is it worth noting when you mention the Central Andean Pluvial Event that this pluvial event is abbreviated CAPE, so that it's clear what CAPE I and CAPE II are?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• "and human resettlement at Laguna Miscanti took place about 3,400 years ago" - we were told earlier that Miscanti remained inhabited during the drought?

  Apparently population increased again. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• "Sparser[d] vegetation[40][14] known as "tolar" grows on the surrounding terrain. " - the link you currently have at tolar points to a Bohemian silver coin?

  Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• "The two lakes are important breeding sites for flamingos[106] and horned coot.[107] Other birds found in the region include Anarhynchus alticola (Puna plover), Chloephaga melanoptera (Andean goose; aquatic), Fulica ardesiaca (Andean coot), Fulica cornuta (Horned coot)," - since we've listed the horned coot in the initial sentence, then it shouldn't be listed as one of the "other birds" that also lives there in addition to the birds of the initial sentence

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• I don't know that we can call a landscape "spectacular" in wikivoice

  On two minds, since it's hard to recast this one and the landscape value is quite important to Miscanti being a tourist destination. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• "One report claims that the city of Antofagasta also draws from Laguna Miscanti.[129]" - is there any reason to think that this claim isn't just a simple error in a source, given that if I'm using Google Maps correctly, Miscanti and Antofagasta are hundreds of kilometers away from each other?

  Yes, the fact that long-distance water transport by pipeline is a thing in Chile and in arid regions more generally. Although there might be more direct government sources, but none on a quick glance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• What is "remote vegetation"? A quick Google search does not enlighten me with anything that appears to refer to anything that would fit the context here

  Recast. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

That's it for the second pass. Hog Farm _Talk 00:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

I'm probably not going to do a full review, but I've taken the liberty of doing a bunch of copyediting for style, which I'll probably continue to work on. I'm trying my best to make sure I keep the right citations with the right bits of text, but I recommend you take a look to make sure I haven't inadvertently lost any. RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

A few specific questions:

• Why do you spell out meter, millimetre, kilometre, etc? Not to mention "square kilometres"? It seems like it adds a lot of extra bulk for no good reason vs the conventional abbreviations.
• 1 millimetre per year (0.0012 in/Ms) Inches per mega-second? Seriously?
• Why in some places do you have "/a", some places "per year" and in other places "/year"?
• dropping to −10 – −20 °C (14 – −4 °F) I don't know what the right way to do this is, but what you've got now is hard to read. Maybe ask the folks at WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers for suggestions?

  Looks like between me and other users some of these convert artifacts are fixed now. Also did two small fixes of your fixes. Asked as recommended since I couldn't figure out a better way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  Found an alternative option. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• In some places you put a comma in 4-digit numbers (3400 years ago the lake reformed) in some places not (13,800–9,700 years before present). Either is OK, but pick one style and use it everywhere.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• During former lake highstands We have a highstand which redirects to Raised shoreline, so possibly link this. On the other hand, I'm not sure that's really the same meaning, but take a look and see if it makes sense to do so.

  It's kinda sorta related, but raised shoreline is more for the tectonically induced seashore uplift rather than the water level drop. Is "highstand" clear enough for laypeople even w/o a link? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Media review - pass

Hi Leafy46 and welcome to FAC! I'll review the media files. The article contains the following:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Cure_-_Alone_-_single_cover_art.jpeg
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Cure_-_Alone.ogg

Both are non-free files with valid use rationales and sufficiently low quality. They are placed in appropriate locations, are relevant, and the image has an alt-text. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Phlsph7: Hey, thanks a dozen for the media review! I wish you well for your own open FAC right now :) Leafy46 (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Source review

Here'll be a source review from me! RedShellMomentum 04:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This table lists 3 random passages from throughout the article (4.9% of 61 total passages). These passages contain 3 inline citations (3.2% of 95 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. RedShellMomentum 04:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Leafy46: Source review is all good, support. I also have a peer review for "Dick in a Box" up, you may leave comments there if you wish. RedShellMomentum 04:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@RedShellMomentum: Thanks for your help on this article's peer review, and for your support here :) Leafy46 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Camilasdandelions

Thanks so much for reviewing this article! I have made changes to all your points above, except for the places in which I've left comments. Please feel free to respond at your convenience, and let me know if you have any other comments regarding this article. Leafy46 (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the above issues are all that I could find, as you wrote the article very well! Let me know if all of them are addressed. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 00:34, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that should about do it (removing the 'Credits' from 'Credits and personnel'). Everything should be addressed, thank you again for taking the time to complete this review :) Leafy46 (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you eiter, now I support the article. Also if you don't mind, I'd like to receive your comments for my recent FAC, since there's no prose review provided yet. Best luck with your FAC! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 01:18, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Media review

• File:JoJo – Good to Know (Album Cover).png has an appropriate FUR
• No copyright issues with File:JoJo 2011.jpg, File:Demi Lovato Interview Feb 2020.png, or File:Tinashe 2020 Vogue 1.jpg
• I'm not sure how File:JoJo - So Bad.ogg demonstrates escapism with the lyrics of its audio portion, so either cut that bit from the caption or use a different part of the song

As of this writing, the media review gets an 80% pass from me, just tweak the audio and it'll reach a full 100%! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS Thank you for the media review. I just revised its caption to "The opening track 'So Bad' incorporates distorted piano and 808-driven production.", since I couldn't find the sources directly citing its lyrics. I hope this is better than previous. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 04:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Works for me, and you get a full pass on media use now :). I might review the prose later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm looking forward to your comments. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 12:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Source review

Here'll be a source review from me! RedShellMomentum 08:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This table lists 5 random passages from throughout the article (5.6% of 90 total passages). These passages contain 5 inline citations (4.3% of 117 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. RedShellMomentum 08:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Camilasdandelions: Source review is all good, just one small fix is needed for a support. RedShellMomentum 23:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @RedShellMomentum, I fixed the grammar issue. The source states: "The mid-tempo track sees Jojo letting potential suitors know she's perfectly fulfilled without them.", and I just directly quoted "mid-tempo" there. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 23:35, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@Camilasdandelions Thanks, support. I also have a peer review for "Dick in a Box" up, you may leave comments there if you wish. RedShellMomentum 23:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

750h

Will review. Remind me if i don’t get to this soon 750h+ 16:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Leafy46

All comments are based on this current revision of the article. Let me know when you finish address all these comments, and I'll go over a second pass. Leafy46 (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Lead

• Probably gonna need a citation for the sentence "...it marks her first release since leaving Atlantic Records and launching her own record label imprint Clover Music through a joint venture with Warner Records", since that sentence isn't "just common sense" and is not mentioned at all within the prose.
• "It was shaped by her experiences in the music industry..." — I don't think I saw anything about this in the prose? But maybe I just missed it.
• "Some critics noted its shift toward a more R&B-focused direction and its departure from conventional pop structures." — I only see one critic mentioning something like this, so "some" seems inaccurate.
• [citation needed] on the album being recorded in 2019. She wrote it in 2019 per the article, but she very well could have recorded it January–April 2020.

Background and inspiration

• Reading this article with no context on JoJo's career, I'm confused about the relationship between Blackground Records, Da Family Entertainment, and Interscope Records. From what I'm reading, JoJo "had not been able to release any studio albums in ten years" due to a dispute with Blackground Records... after accusing a separate record company of keeping her in limbo in 2009? But even then, in the ten years since that dispute (2009--2019), the article says she *did* release a new studio album: Mad Love in 2016. And Interscope just kind of falls in the crosshairs somewhere? The first part of this first paragraph might benefit from a rewrite to clarify the chronology of events.
• "JoJo was abstaining from sex when writing Good to Know in 2019..." — Is this relevant? Especially because it's the first sentence of this paragraph, I'd expect something like this to lead into how this abstinence played a role into the writing, themes, etc. of the record as a whole. However, it only seems to be used to contrast the album's themes of sensuality, which just feels like a piece of personal information jammed in for the sake of it. It's not like a person needs to be sexually active to write songs or sing about the subject.
• I also recommend moving some of these themes down to the third paragraph in this section. This is because the article currently splits the discussion of the album's themes between these two paragraphs, and has the meaning of the album's title stuck in between.
• "The title of Good to Know reflects 'everything [JoJo had] learned in the past few years'..." — I didn't quite understand what this was getting at until I read the full quote from the source itself. Maybe rephrase it as "The title of Good to Know reflects the value of learning from feedback and criticism..." or something?
• "With Bustle, JoJo shared that she felt some parts of the album 'an overshare'..." — Missing a "were" in there.

Composition

• I found this source currently not included in the article, which brings some interesting analysis into whether this album can be considered "hip-hop" and gives a score to the album, to boot. Would be worth including, imo: Rap Reviews.
• Rap-Up (source #22) seems to be broken
• I think it's disingenuous to say that "a variety of media outlets" described Good to Know this way when it is obviously from a press release. It's not like these outlets came to this conclusion on their own, they were simply quoting a promotional statement released by the label.
• Looking at the source, I don't think that JoJo was influenced by the studio sessions themselves, rather it was from the visits to the strip clubs.
• De-link numb, it's an everyday word (MOS:OL).
• Ditto for string. If nothing else, it should at least direct to String instrument rather than just String.
• "An acoustic ballad "Small Things" is about..." — Change to " "Small Things" is an acoustic ballad about..." for flow.
• The fact that "So Bad" has an "808-driven production" per the audio sample is not addressed within the article itself, and is thus OR.

Promotion

• "...was scheduled for a second-quarter release in spring of that year." — I'd get rid of "in Spring" per MOS:SEASON and because it's redundant with "second-quarter" here (though "second quarter" in of itself is not stated in either of the sources, as far as I can see).
• Why include the fact that JinJoo Lee is "a guitarist from DNCE" when she has a Wikipedia page of her own, and when none of the other figures here have a similar description?
• "JoJo subsequently released three additional music videos: "Lonely Hearts" on April 28, directed by Zelda Williams, "Comeback" on May 8, and "Small Things" on June 23, both of which directed by Santiago Salviche." — I'd use semicolons instead of commas to separate these MVs, especially they are so dense with information. That, or I'd move the director information to a separate sentence, just because the sentence currently reads a bit messily. Leafy46 (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• It may be worth noting that the Demi Lovato remix of "Lonely Hearts" was included on the albums' deluxe version.
• "...as well as an American singer Tinashe-featured song, "Love Raggae"." — Typo on 'Reggae'. Also, I'm not a fan of the construction of this sentence using "American singer Tinashe-featured" as an adjective; I'd simplify it down to smth like " "Love Reggae", featuring American singer Tinashe".
• "...titled Good to Know Tour." — Missing a 'the'

Reception

• "In a review for Metro Weekly, Sean Maunier noted that she..." — 'JoJo' instead of 'she', as it's the first time she's being mentioned this section.
  • Thank you for your prose review and I highly appreciate that, Leafy46. I believe all of them has been addressed, let me know if I missed anything else. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 14:03, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

    I'll give it a more thorough pass later, but on first glance I see that you didn't address the "abstaining from sex" part and replaced "second-quarter release in spring" with just "Spring" against MOS:SEASON. I also noticed that JoJo's three EP releases were all with Atlantic Records, meaning that they should ideally be moved after the mention of her signing onto Atlantic to keep the section in chronological order. Leafy46 (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

    @Leafy46: My apologies. I forgot to reply to those two issues. For the "abstaining from sex", I used it to emphasize the latter phrase ("although the album mainly deals with themes of sex and sensuality"), since it's read naturally as well (as I believe? lol). I also believe it would be lowkey helpful for the album's overall background and theme, but let me know what you think about it (like trimming it to something better etc.) And for the seasoning issue, I just summed it to "Spring" and directly quoted it since she herself stated that the album would be out "Spring 2020". Although I am also aware of that MoS, I'm not sure how to fix this perfectly; fixing it to something like "March" or "May" seems more original research to me. Do you have any suggestions for it? The season and EP ordering have been addressed, thank you. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 15:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Second pass

• Saying that Good to Know is JoJo's "first release since leaving Atlantic Records and launching her own record label imprint Clover Music" is contradicted by the prose saying that she released re-recordings of her first two albums prior.
• "...referencing musician Thundercat's phrase: 'It is what it is. It's good to know.'" — "Phrase" feels weird here, since it makes this seem like one of Thundercat's catchphrases or some other established proverbial expression when she is simply quoting a one-off thing he said.
• I still think the whole mention of JoJo's sex life is kinda unnecessary, but if nothing else I'd at least suggest flipping the order of the sentence ("About sex, despite JoJo abstaining") in order to put the emphasis on the album's themes rather than on JoJo.
• "As noted in a press release as an..." -> "As noted in a press release, it is an...", and fixing up the rest of the sentence accordingly. Although tbh, I might suggest getting rid of the press release quote altogether, since it comes of as relatively promotional and doesn't actually say all that much about the record (it's already defined as an R&B album before, and the emotional honesty stuff is all in the 'Background and inspiration' section).
  • I first fixed it to the latter's version. Not sure if this is a "promotional" thing, but I think it will also be helpful to keep the official press release's explanation of Good to Know's overall sounds. Also I'm not even sure where to put these three sources when I "[get] rid of the press release quote altogether". Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:16, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• Un-link "beats". I get it's not *technically* an everyday word, but it certainly should not direct to Beat (music) as that's an article strictly about the music theory term rather than the more informal definition of "beats".
• I checked the source on the line "...reflecting a period in JoJo's personal life marked by a relationship breakdown that she has linked to an instance of infidelity while intoxicated" because I didn't quite understand it, and I don't think the source ever says that JoJo and her ex broke up because of her cheating? Perhaps it's something which can be implied, but that's OR.
  • According to People: But she has had rough patches. On Good to Know, JoJo sings about a recent low point in her life when she cheated on her then-boyfriend while drunk. The experience led to an epiphany. / "I self-sabotaged because I didn't feel worthy of a loving, lasting relationship," JoJo says. "I didn't love myself. I am actively practicing self-love. It's not just something you arrive at — I need to really work at it." She stated that she "didn't feel worthy of a loving, lasting relationship", which would mean "JoJo and her ex broke up because of her cheating" I guess? I will trynna fix this if you still think it's an OR. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:16, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• It's interesting that you mention "Bad Habits" in the 'Songs' subsection, despite the fact that you seem to be going off the digital tracklist where it doesn't appear? At least, per you calling "Don't Talk Me Down" the closing track instead of "Proud". I'd probably just merge that into the discussion on "Pedialyte".
• "a "silken, spacy" song "So Bad"" — "A" to "The"

More to come later. Leafy46 (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Leafy46: Thanks! Most are revised as well. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:16, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Prose comments from SNUGGUMS

I just made a minor tweak here, and now support this for FA! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS Much thanks :)! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 22:42, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

PMC

I am being so good and doing my review right away and not letting the ADHD win

• "the East Fork Chimacum near the community of Chimacum" I think you need a comma here between Chimacum and near
  • Added.-G
• "In 2024–2025, a monitoring station near the mouth of the creek reported..." this is nitpicky but right now you're saying that the reporting was done in 2024–2025. I might revise to something like "For the 2024–2025 water year". Dealer's choice idk
  • Done.-G
• Suggest embiggening the Geology lead image as the text is very tiny and unreadable at current size, even with 10% zoom to account for my ancient eyes
  • Done.-G
• "such as hummocky terrain and kettles" comma after kettles to close the clause
  • Done.-G
• Maybe throw in an image of one of the fish for the biology section, just to be fun?
  • I wouldn't want to include a picture of a fish that's not actually from the creek.-G
• "Forest restoration projects were made" idk if "made" is the word. "carried out"?
  • Done.-G
• Do any sources discuss why beavers were removed? Also, I might swap "formerly" to "once", it just sounds nicer
  • Clarified.-G
• I might suggest adding at least one more subsection to History; having just one near the bottom makes it feel oddly balanced
  • Done.-G
• "before briefly reopening" "before" is unnecessary here
  • Done.-G
• "entered a period of decline" could probably be trimmed to "declined"
  • Done.-G
• "Reed canarygrass was introduced" do we know why/how?
  • Clarified.-G
• "By the 1950s, a USDA report" since the report is dated to 1955 by the source, I'd just say that
  • Done.-G
• "The previously prevalent livestock farming" since you haven't previously established livestock farming as prevalent, might reword to "Livestock farming, once prevalent, has declined..."
  • Done.-G

That's all I got, a nice tidy little article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• @Premeditated Chaos: Thank you very much! Responded. Generalissima (talk) (it/she)
  • I think it's unnecessarily pedantic to insist on a pic of a fish specifically from the creek, as opposed to just being the same species as what's found in the creek, but it'd be a very silly hill to die on, so I'm a supoort. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Eddie891

I've just written a few creek articles, admittedly on the other side of the country, so might have something to add here. WIll do my best not to duplicate PMC's comments above.

• In the infobox you list the basin as 37 sqmi, but in the article it's 33-37. Why the discrepancy?
  • Fixed it. Sources disagree on the size.-G
• Washington Department of Ecology mentions and East Fork and West Fork, while I think you refer to what here we call the West Fork as the Main stem (which, by the way, I think is worth linking). Do other sources call it a/the West Fork? Here we also have the east fork attributed with about 1/3 of the stream's flow, while in our article we say "a little under a fifth"
  • More to the point, I think you can do a bit more with the source. We have 20 years of data for the creek's flow in this source, including mean flow rates for different months. Maybe it's worth including some broader trends, as opposed to just the one year?
    • Sources call it different things: Gatley et al. 2015 calls it the main stem (see p. 6), Bahls and Rubin 1996 say 'West Fork' (see p. 2), Jones et al. 2013 says the basin consists of Chimacum Creek and its tributary East Fork Chimacum Creek (see p. 2), while the 2024 Drainage District Analysis says West Chimacum Creek (CHI) and East Chimacum Creek (ECH) comprising the primary waterways. (see p. 4). I brought discussions of flow to the Flow section and expanded it a little, including the discrepancy between sources. But to your second point, I'm unsure how to present that. I feel like averaging out many years would veer to far into OR, but I don't know how much raw data would be helpful here. Could you give more specifics about what you think we should add? -G
      • I think it would be worth clarifying the different names, maybe in an explanatory footnote. I guess you're right on the mean flow, I suppose I misread the yearly mean as a 20 year mean. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
• Do we cite in the article that the agricultural land is particularly fertile, as you mention in the lede? (I don't think that land being used for agriculture necessarily establishes that by itself
  • You're right; removed that.-G
• "Much of the land in this area was purchased by the Fish and Wildlife Service and Washington Recreation and Conservation Office" I would say something like "Federal/US Fish and Wildlife Service" - my impression based on rest of article wa that we are talking about a Washington FWS
  • Clarified.-G
• Surprised to see no mention of pesticides/fertilizers/pollution- often a concern on water quality in agricultural areas. Anything on this?
  • Milked a bunch of stuff on water quality from the 2024 Jefferson County Conservation District, realized I completely forgot to add that.-G
• Is the creek still stocked? You mention some historical instances, but nothing today.
  • I can't seem to find mention of it. -G
• "The mainstem discharges out of the small Delanty Lake" Source doesn't seem to speak to the lake's size, to my eyes
  • Good point, removed the adjective.-G

Just some preliminary comments, will give the article a proper read through over the next couple of days. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• I still think it would be worth linking main stem
  • Done.-G
• You say "The mainstem creek (also known as West Chimacum Creek) originates from a series of springs and ponds in the forested hills" and then say "The mainstem discharges out of Delanty Lake" which, to me, contradict each other somewhat. Does it originate at the lake or from a series of springs and ponds? If the series of springs and ponds mentioned in the first para here are the creeks and lakes mentioned in the second para, why is the first part even necessary?
  • Rephrased this.-G
• Odd to me that we get the elevation of the East Fork's origins, but not the West
  • Been trying to find that statistic to little luck.-G
• "draining the broad Chimacum Valley" What is 'broad' supposed to mean in this context?
  • Removed.-G
• " decreasing annual precipitation" relative to what?
  • Clarified.-G
• you say "The valleys of both creeks have thick, poorly-drained soils", but this source says "much of the agricultural land is along the relatively flat areas of the Chimacum Creek valley and the Leland Creek valley where soils are typically quite permeable" (3-61), which to me contradicts the idea of poor drainage
  • I'm just repeating what the USGS says: The valleys of Chimacum Creek and East Fork of Chimacum Creek, portions of the Tarboo Valley, and other glacial depressions are characterized by thick sequences of poorly drained soils rich in organic material. Poor drainage doesn't necessarily mean the soil isn't very permeable; it could just be very saturated with water. Nevertheless, the word sequences might be the key here; added that.-G
• "with less than an inch of rain per month during July and August." is this an average? A record low?
  • Clarified.-G
• "Concentrations in downstream areas has declined over time, but continues to violate safety standards." This feels like something worth having an "as of" at the end, especially if there hasn't been testing in the past decade, as seems to be the case?
  • Fair, clarified.-G
• "During this period, many testing stations on the main stem showed temperature levels that violated the state guideline of 60.8 °F (16.0 °C) during the summer,." Stray comma, but I also don't get what this means. What is the guideline for?
  • Water temperature; clarified.-G
• I think I read something in a source about the flow of the river varying widely, to the point that in the summer no water flows into the west fork from Delaney Lake () that I think would be worth adding.
  • Oh, good catch; added.-G
• "and an unidentified species of minnow" I am a bit confused why you include this, if "are also known to inhabit the creek" already leaves room open for potential other fish that we don't know about.
  • Fair, removed.-G
• I get the sense that the decline of chum was in the 1980s, rather than 1990s based on this source?

• I generally don't think that "expatriated" extends to non-human subjects; particularly when not in the context of countries

Some more Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• • Huh, I've seen it papers, but you're right it seems uncommon. Reworded.-G

• I still would suggest putting the alternate names of the beginning of the mainstem (west fork etc) in a note (ie: "Also known as X, Y, Z") - Unless you think there's a good reason not to?
  • I feel an EFN is unnecessary and hard to source (as no source specifically discusses the name of the creek) but I just added a parenthetical 'also known as'. - G
• The report on water quality goes into some more depth about the trend of water temperature than we do ("The temperature trend from 1998 to 2013 showed a decrease of 1oC (1.8 oF) on Chimacum Creek's main stem and a decrease of 2oC (3.6oF) on the east fork" from the abstract. Not sure we need to go into the actual temp numbers, but the trend seems relevant
  • added.-G
• The sentence beginning "Efforts to restore riparian forest conditions began in the 1980s and 1990s." feels like it should now sequentially come after we talk about the end of the summer chum? That's certainly how the cited source treats the history
  • Fixed.-G
• I still don't understand the "guideline" for water temperature. The cited source seems to put it in the context of salmonid habitat, but we don't mention anything about that, so I'm not sure what to make of it from our article.
  • I feel it might be unnecessary, esp. as the source expresses doubt whether its actually a good gauge on salmon suitability. Removed that.-G
• I am generally a bit unhappy with the Biology/Hydrology sections. I think, this is because what we are talking about is largely the *current* Biology/Hydrology of the creek (in part because there just isn't much information about the historic conditions), but we keep doubling back and qualifying the history of parts and it ends up feeling like there's a bunch of history in these other sections (but inconsistent, and imo somewhat duplicative, history). And the history section itself covers a lot of the biological/hydrological history (ie restoration projects)! I'd vote to move what isn't in the history section already there, and cut the rest. For example: In the biology section, "Driven from the area by forest clearing and trapping during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, beavers were reintroduced to the watershed in the 1960s, and became prevalent as trees spread along the creek." -> "Beavers are prevalent along [portions of?] the creek", and in history mention the reintroduction/driving out. So, the question here is whether you have considered doing this. Perhaps you have and decided that it did not make sense, but I'm curious to hear why, if that is the case.

Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:43, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

• @Eddie891: Good point: I reorganized some stuff. Where a present situation is relatively new (ie, the spread of beavers or reed canarygrass) I still included dates to provide context. Hope it works better now! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Eddie891: Checking back in on this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry. (Hopefully) Final comments. I think the article flows much better now!

• "The group was devastated by diseases and massacres before Euro-American settlement" In the lead you say that this devastation came from "surrounding groups" - I don't really see that reflected in the article. I do see Gibbs attributing many deaths to attacks "many years prior" but can we explicitly tie these to their devastation (there's a difference between many deaths and total devastation, if that makes sense)? And what about the disease? Did that come via the other tribes, or Europeans? Any sense of what that looked like? Not sure that you can say it explicitly, but I worry the current phrasing opens us up to interpretations along the lines of "oh, the Europeans came and nobody was left so... nothing to see here". Again, if the sourcing doesn't offer more, no worries, just wanted to raise the point.
  • Changes seem fine. The Chimacum were devastated right at the line between the protohistorical and historical periods for the region, so there's a lot that's unclear about them. The source does mention it in the context of broader disease epidemics so I reworded it there to note that it was specifically part of the epidemics of Old World disease. That spread without direct European contact, but they may have been contacted anyway due to the fur trade; I don't think we can say for certain how it got there. As for the massacres, I reworded to note that the groups that attacked them were indeed surrounding indigenous groups such as the Makah, Snohomish, and Suquamish. -G
• In the after colonization section- I think there's some duplication that is unnecessary. For instance "The Irondale ironworks and adjacent industry deposited large amounts of fill material over the creek's estuary, resulting in the loss of the creek's lagoon and spit...The creek's delta historically featured a spit and a small lagoon. These were covered by several acres of infill in the 19th and early 20th centuries." These are referencing the same thing, no?

Pretty much it from me! I made a few minor changes that I think would be uncontroversial, but of course feel free to revert them if you disagree. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• • @Eddie891: Tweaks seem fine; I removed the redundant info about the estuary. Thank you! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 12:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

    Happy to Support here, thanks for the quick and effective responses! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the map
  • Done.-G
• File:Chimacum_Creek_in_Port_Hadlock,_Washington,_ca_1898-1899_(WASTATE_2549).jpeg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Mouth_of_Chimacum_Creek_in_Port_Hadlock,_Washington,_ca_1898-1899_(WASTATE_2548).jpeg, File:Klallam_people_near_canoe.jpg, File:Man_in_horse-drawn_carriage_on_bridge_over_Chimacum_Creek_in_Port_Hadlock,_Washington,_ca_1898-1899_(WASTATE_2550).jpeg
  • Oops, the Washington State Archives ones should have been PD-US-Unpublished; fixed this. The description states that "Klallam people near canoe.jpg" was published by a local postcard company c. 1914.
• File:Map_missoula_floods.gif: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Fixed the link here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

FM

• Some preliminary comments. There seem to be some WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script: FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Fixed.-G
• "The main stem creek (also known as West Chimacum Creek) originates the forested hills" originates in?
  • Fixed.-G
• Link unincorporated community. As a non-American, I have no idea what this means.
  • Done.-G
• "filled in by several acres of added material in the 19th and early 20th centuries, although habitat restoration in 2006 cleared most of this fill material" what is "added material"? And doesn't "added" go without saying since you begin with "filled"?
  • • Fixed.-G
• Link basic.
  • Done.-G
• Link salmon.
  • Done.-G

@FunkMonk: Thank you; got to all these. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks good, I'm not sure if the fill sentence had to be completely removed (seems relevant), I see you later down say "deposited large amounts of fill material", so maybe it could just be reworded and restored? FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

That was in response to Eddie's request that things be rearranged to be more chronological. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:32, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Link Fraser Glaciation in the caption.
  • Done.-G
• Could explain what alluvial means in parenthesis.
  • Done.-G
• "Western settlement" Earlier you say " Euro-American settlement", which would seem more appropriate? Technically, the settlers came from the east of there, also...
  • Fair, done.-G
• "derives from the name" Do we know what the name itself means?
  • Sadly, the sources don't seem to say. It may be unknown.-G
• "a faulty hydrant released" and "a culvert failure" what were these associated with? A faulty hydrant where?
  • • FunkMonk Not as much info on the hydrant or its location, but added more context with the culvert. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:55, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Source review - support

Sour review incoming either later this evening or sometime tomorrow. Hog Farm _Talk 00:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• What are the credentials of Daryl McClary? See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sounder commuter rail/archive1
  • While HistoryLink is a tertiary source, it has editorial review and cites its own sources. I consider it appropriate when used to cite something like dates; it seems analogous to citing a local newspaper. For his credit, McClary seems to be an otherwise obscure local historian and journalist.-G
    • Not the strongest source in the world, but it does seem similar to the Encyclopedia of Arkansas which I have used at FAC before without any problems. Hog Farm _Talk 01:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Other sourcing is almost entirely governmental reports of a type which look acceptable for what they are being cited for
• The link for the Polenz file is a direct link to a .zip file which doesn't do anything? In fact, I'm a bit confused of what the nature of this source is in general. It looks like this has the same publication information as what we're citing, but then there's a bunch of stuff cited to different pages within "Geologic Map of the Center 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Jefferson County, Washington" which not only sounds like it matches the linked file but would surely be a map that doesn't have discrete page numbers?
  • Geologic survey maps are usually a two part thing; they have both a map (cited as 'map' in the sfn) and a corresponding report which explains each section of the map and gives it sources. I couldn't just link to the map .pdf itself, so I had to link to a download with both the map and its corresponding report.-G

Spot checks:

• " By the early 2000s, much of the land surrounding the last mile of the river's course before its mouth was public ownership, managed by community-owned easements such as the Jefferson Land Trust." - source indicates "While much of the habitat in the lower mile is public ownership or protected by conservation easements through the Jefferson Land Trust." I don't think the current phrasing is quite right - an easement isn't an ownership right, it's just usage rights or restrictions and the source doesn't indicate the relative amounts of public ownership vs easements so we don't know the relative proportions to say that "much" is specifically publicly owned, rather than a mix of both
  • Fair; reworded.-G
• "Euro-American settlement in the area began during the 1850s" - OK
• "The riparian (riverside) areas of the watershed were covered by conifer forest, with trees such as spruce, cedar, hemlock, and fir." - OK
• "Prior to colonization, the lower reach of the creek and the Chimacum Valley was a network of forested swamps with many beaver ponds, meandering river channels, and crabapple shrubs" - OK
• "Chimacum Creek has the largest watershed of the Quimper Peninsula, approximately 33 to 37 square miles (85 to 96 km2)" - mostly OK, but neither source provides a range. One says 33 sqm and the other 37; would it be more accurate to present this as an or statement (or even relgate the varying sizes to a footnote)?
  • Fair enough.-G
• "There are five small lakes in the basin—Anderson, Beausite, Delanty, Gibbs, and Peterson" - OK
• "with less than an inch of rain per month on average during July and August" - OK
• "A small area of estuary and intertidal wetland is located at the river's embayment into the ocean, on the last 0.2 miles (0.32 km) of its course" - is "estuary and intertidal wetland" equivalent to "salt marsh and lagoon" from the source?
  • A salt marsh is a type of intertidal wetland, and a lagoon in this case is a form of estuary, but you're right those are more specific, so I reworded.-G
• "Many of these are salmonids who spawn in the creek, including coho and chum salmon, as well as steelhead trout and cutthroat trout" - OK
• "The plant closed in 1911, briefly reopening in 1917–1919 due to heavy demand for steel during World War I" - OK
• "with about 3,000 acres (1,200 ha) of farmland in the watershed" - OK
• "The last dairy in the valley closed in 2015" - source says 2016'
  • Oops, fixed.-G
• "As the climate warmed during the end of the Vashon Stade" - close paraphrasing; the only difference from the source is the substitution of "during" for "at". I'm not convinced that it is not possible to rephrase this in a way that avoids the issue
  • Rephrased.-G

Some issues on the spotchecks noted; questions on formatting for one source and potentially reliability on another. I searched for major sources ommitted on Google Scholar and a couple of academic databases - is this USGS document about groundwater in the creek's basin of any use? Hog Farm _Talk 00:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• • Hog Farm I had thought this source mostly covered information I already cited, but I looked back through and found a couple of new things to cite. Thank you! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Aoba47

• Please add alternative text for the images so that the article is more easily accessible for readers.
  • Done!
• Would a link for secondary education in France be helpful for secondary school? I know that education systems can vary from country to country, so I was not sure if a link would be beneficial for readers who may be unfamiliar with a secondary school, particularly in the context of Paris.
  • Hmmmmm I think this probably isn't super necessary so I'm going to avoid it
    • Makes sense. Thank you for letting me know. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• Apologies as I know that I bring this up often in FAC reviews, but I would be mindful of using the following sentence construction, with disagreements mainly centering around the benefits and drawbacks of McQueen's more commercial turn. In FAC reviews, I often see editors discourage the sue of the "with X verb-ing" wording. I do not have a strong opinion about it either way, but I point this out just because the frequency in which this comment in raised in the FAC space.
  • Have tweaked
• I have a question about this sentence: It was called the "Novak" after actress Kim Novak, who frequently appeared in Hitchcock films. Did Novak really frequently appear in Hitchcock's films? I know that she is in Vertigo, which is objectively iconic, but I am struggling to think of other Hitchcock films with Novak. I could just blanking on the obvious ones though. That is why I get for starting a review right after a day of work lol.
  • No, you're right, I'll tweak it
• Did McQueen ever give a reason for why he left the show without greeting the audience? I doubt that he did, since I would imagine that this would be in the article if it was known, but I thought that I should ask to double-check anyway.
  • Unfortunately no; I think he was just in an extra snitty mood for this collection.
    • I had a feeling that would the case, but thank you for clarifying that for me. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• I have a comment for the following sentence: Despite the lack of McQueen's usual theatrics, many reviewers were pleased with the 1950s-inspired tailored silhouettes and glamourous evening wear. This sentence uses five citations, and I would recommend doing something like citation bundling to avoid any concerns with citation overkill. I believe that this is the only case of this in the article, but I would mindful of this if there are any other instances.
  • Whoops, I meant to slap these into a bundle and forgot, thanks for the reminder.
    • You are all good. It is easy to miss something like this. I believe that this is the only instance of this in the article. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I hope that this review is helpful. I will be focusing primarily on the prose, aside from the stray image comment that I had at the start. I have only done a quick skim through the article so far, and I will read through everything more thoroughly when I have the time. I did watch the fashion show on YouTube, and I actually really enjoyed the staging and the clothing, but that probably shows how basic I am lol. Please let me know if you have any questions about anything, and best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

You're right, the collection is actually quite elegant, and there's nothing wrong with the staging in and of itself. I think had it been presented at Dior or Chanel or another classy kind of fashion house, nobody would have questioned it. It's just that the whole thing lacked the nasty edge McQueen was known for. Anyway, not germane here; I've made your suggested changes and look forward to any others. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I agree. If it was a Dior of Chanel show, I think that this would been more praised and well-remembered. I do like the Rear Window comparison in particular. I would be interesting if a show ever dialed that up, like having models walking through windowed areas and positioning the audience more as voyeurs. But, then again, that is not a particularly great way to showcase the actual fashion lol. I will look through the article tomorrow if that is okay with you. I hope that you are having a wonderful weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• I am uncertain about the sexually reserved wording for this part, a stereotype of the attractive but sexually reserved women who led Hitchcock's films. While the Hitchcock Blonde is more reserved, sexuality is still a key component to her character, and Hitchcock has said that he believes that female characters with this more reserved quality are actually more sexual and erotic. Maybe replace "sexually reserved" with just "reserved" or a different word entirely, like "aloof", to be more accurate? Obviously, this would need to be supported in the citation.
  • Hmm. I've swapped to "romantically aloof".

This is my only remaining comment. Once this has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. I hope that you are doing well and that you are having an excellent end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I do have one outstanding comment, but it is admittedly more on the minor side, so I do not want this to hold up the FAC in any way, shape, or form (that and I am stepping away from Wikipedia). Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Aoba, I know you've mentioned on your talk page that you're retiring, but I hope you know that I have always (and will always) appreciate your comments and your time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

MSK

Saving a spot, will do a prose review soon. msk 19:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

• The Man Who Knew Too Much (Autumn/Winter 2005) is the twenty-sixth collection by McQueen for his eponymous fashion house. Should this be linked as eponymous fashion house instead?
  • Nobody can ever decide. I'm something like 20 FACs in and I keep getting told put it in, take it out, put it in, etc etc. So I'm sticking with what I've got, lol.
• including a red one with a voluminous mermaid skirt that evoked the designs of Charles James. Is this elaborated upon in any sources? Same for the following sentence.
  • Unfortunately no to both. Bethune and Watt are fashion writers who I think are assuming the viewer knows James' work, which is basically big lovely classy 1950s ball gowns. I tweaked to say "a designer from the period" so the connection is more obvious, how's that? As for the Monroe dress comparison, there's not much more to say other than to point out that McQueen was doing a copycat version of a famous 1960s glam dress in a collection based on 50s/60s glam.
• McQueen earned praise for successfully updating classic styles with modern details while avoiding overwrought retro fashion clichés like flicked hair and cat eye glasses. "overwrought retro fashion clichés" comes off a bit strange in wikivoice, though I'm not entirely sure how to change it.
  • I'll admit I suffered on this one a bit so I'm happy to take suggestions. This is the cleanest phrasing I got to without pulling direct quotes or sounding even less formal (at one point I had "throwback" in there instead of "retro").
    • @Premeditated Chaos: There seems to be a source-text mismatch here, Menkes says "it was to his credit as a brilliant stage manager that his Hitchcock theme never got out of hand i give or take those flicked up hairstyles and eye glasses suggesting secretary as a career summit." I read it as "The Hitchcock theme never got out of hand, *except* for those flicked up hairstyles and eye glasses".msk 17:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
      • Huh, yeah, you're right. I went back to double check that it wasn't an OCR issue with Gale (the same source is also on ProQuest) and nope, it's my error. I've changed it to "or successfully updating classic Hitchcock-esque styles with modern details, avoiding an overly referential approach", drawing on Menkes' statement that the theme never got out of hand and Ings-Chambers saying that the modern details "ensured you were never merely treading a time warp".
• Hair was bouffant or backcombed. make-up was restrained, ... "Make-up" isn't properly capitalized; additionally, what does "backcombed" or "bouffant" mean?
  • Fixed the caps. I've clarified that "bouffant" is a very period style, and "backcombed" adds volume. How's that?

Thanks for the review, hopefully that all seems reasonable. I did re-add the second Charles James link per WP:DUPELINK as it's two sections down so a reasonable dupe in my opinion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

That's all for now, support msk 23:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

• The first USS Undine was a tinclad warship Explain what tinclad means. You could pick up the language you used in the intro to this FAC: "a group of lightly-armored Union ships during the American Civil War which were used mainly for operations on the inland rivers"
  • I've added some brief material like this. Hog Farm _Talk 01:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• the vessel sank after hitting a snag Explain what a snag is. I'm a sailor, and I didn't even know what it meant until I looked it up.
  • I've glossed in both the lead and article body as "(submerged tree)". Hog Farm _Talk 19:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• It is known that the vessel had two boilers,[4] while further information on her dimensions is not available apparently we have no information at all about her dimensions, so I'd say "any information" instead of "further information".
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 19:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• at a cost of $35,600,[3] run this through {{inflation}}
  • Done - although note that I am using the US-GDP inflator instead of the CPI, as the template documentation indicates that conversions for capital/government expenditures should be based on GDP instead of CPI. Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, GDP sounds like the right index for this. RoySmith (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• after mythical class of water nymphs. "after THE mythical ..."?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• outfitted as a tinclad warship. are there any tinclads which aren't warships?
  • No, but I think it's good to be clear that this was a warship. The military was also purchase vessels for use as non-combat auxiliary vessels at this time (hospital ships, receiving ships, storeships, quartermaster's ships, etc.) Hog Farm _Talk 01:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• Armor in the form of 0.25-inch (0.64 cm) and 0.5-inch (1.3 cm) iron plates was added to the vessel. Undine was given the identification number 55.[3] Undine's muster rolls list 52 sailors.[9] this bunch of sentences is choppy. It should be rephrased to make it flow better.
  • This should be better now - I had added a description of tinclad armor to the explanation of what the vessels were and have moved the information about the iron plates to after that. I've also added some context to the identification number and have adjusted the placement of that information in the paragraph. Hog Farm _Talk 01:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• operating between Natchez, Mississippi, and Fort Adams, Mississippi. I don't know what the MOS says about this, but to my eye it would read better as "... between Natchez and Fort Adams, Mississippi".
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• Undine struck a snag while backing off of the riverbank there's no particular riverbank previously identified, so I'd say "a riverbank".
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 19:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• The sounds of the fighting caught the attention of the crew of Undine I would have just said "... the attention of Undine".
  • But wouldn't this phrasing anthropomorphize the ship? 19:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Well, sure, but given that we call ships "she", I'm not sure that's a problem. There's precedent in other FAs. For example, in HMS Emerald (1795), we've got "While cruising inshore at around 17:00, Emerald spotted a large French schooner, Apropos". RoySmith (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
      • I've made the change. Hog Farm _Talk 01:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• The tinclad came under fire It's getting a bit repetitive being told this many times that she's a tinclad. I'd find other ways to refer to her.
  • Rephrased this instance and a couple of the others. Hog Farm _Talk 19:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• Bryant ordered Undine maneuvered out of range of the Confederates This seems like an odd construction grammatically. Perhaps "... to be maneuvered ..."?
• and after ignoring warning signals from Undine, is it known how these signals were given? I'm guessing signal flags, but if known, it would be interesting to include.
  • The source (Wooten) has a quotation which I assume is from Bryant for "warned her by signals to keep out of danger"; "her" in this context is the Venus. I will look to see if other sources clarify this matter, but I would guess that the signals were done using the ship's steam whistle. Hog Farm _Talk 19:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
    • I haven't found something clarifying what the nature of these signals is yet. Hog Farm _Talk 02:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• J. W. Cheeseman, arrived. Confederate fire knocked out the steering system of J. W. Cheeseman. I don't know if there's a specific convention or MOS on this, but I would have said "J. W. Cheeseman" the first time, then shortened it to just "Cheeseman" after that. If there is an accepted rule, then of course do it that way.
  • I'm hesitant to do this as "J. W. Cheeseman" is a full exact name of the ship - I don't think we'd refer to the USS George H. W. Bush as "the Bush" for instance. Hog Farm _Talk 19:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  Dunno. 1945 says "Current estimates place Stennis’ return to operational status in late 2026 or 2027". But I'll leave this to your best judgement. RoySmith (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Bryant ordered the ship abandoned As before, I would have said "to be abandoned", but will defer to accepted practice if needed.
  • @RoySmith: - with this one and the other "to be" one I'm not so sure? "to be abandoned" sounds passable to me, but "to be maneuvered" very clunky. I suspect this is probably a regional English usage difference related to the "need + participal" thing discussed at Midland American English#Grammar. WP:ENGVAR discusses "Standard English" but what counts as standard English? Some things are clear (for instance, I sometimes use double modals in speech but wouldn't in writing an article; it's just nicer to tell somebody "you might ought to do that" than a more direct phrasing) but for more minor regional grammar varieties its less so. Hog Farm _Talk 01:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
    • This is not a big deal for me, leaving it as you have it now is fine. RoySmith (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
      • Another reviewer below commented on this class of phrasing and my wife says my phrasing is wrong, so I've made the change. Hog Farm _Talk 02:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• and the guns spiked Tell the reader what it means to spike a gun, per WP:MTAU.
  • I've handled this with a footnote, if that's okay. Hog Farm _Talk 01:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• The loss of the codes led to orders to "make such private signals in your district as may be needed", This is confusing. I'm assuming it's some variation on "The enemy now knows our codes, so stop using them", but who gave those orders, and to whom were they given?
  • I've clarified using a different source. Hog Farm _Talk 02:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• The gunboat's magazine blew up Are we allowed to say "blew up" in an encyclopedia? Perhaps "exploded" or "detonated"?
  • Not sure; went with "detonated". Hog Farm _Talk 19:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• Kate's commander reported the covering of iron plating Did you mean "recovering"?
  • Should be "recovery". Hog Farm _Talk 19:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

That's it from me for a first read-through. RoySmith (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good, Support RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Support by ZKang123

Will take a look at this.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Only had some minor comments:

• and a tonnage of 179 tons Need conversion

• See tonnage - these aren't tons in the standard sense and this is really a form of ship hold size measurement which doesn't convert between metric and customary. Hog Farm _Talk 16:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• The vessel's armament was used as part of the defenses of Clifton while Undine was raised, a process that was completed on August 1, with the assistance of Little Champion, a pump steamer Sentence might be getting a bit too long and complex here

• Split into two sentences. Hog Farm _Talk 16:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Undine turned back towards Johnsonville, but near Paris Landing, Tennessee, the transport came under fire from some of Forrest's artillery. Might suggest a slight reword to She turned back towards Johnsonville, but Anna came under fire from some of Forrest's artillery near Paris Landing, Tennessee. (previous sentence already began with Undine.)

• I'm not convinced that this is an improvement - "She" is potentially ambiguous here, even with a reference to Anna later in the sentence. Hog Farm _Talk 16:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• It's alright; I was just hoping to see if it could be reworded to prevent repetition, but it would compromise clarity otherwise. Though personally, I might still substitute "the transport" for Anna because I initially thought the transport referred to Undine.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Bryant struck his colors at roughly 4:00 p.m. Might specify which local time, especially for non-Americans.

• I agree with RoySmith's comment below - given that the Standard Time Act wasn't passed until 1918, and earlier attempts were both postwar and mainly related to the railroads, there's nothing useful that can be said here about this. Hog Farm _Talk 16:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Ah I see, but I should assume it was still 4pm of the local time?--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• @ZKang123: - I'm not sure what you're wanting me to do here? There just aren't multiple options of what time it could have been, and at least to me it seems rather obvious that it's referring to 4:00 p.m. at the place where the events were occurring. Hog Farm _Talk 04:01, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• I thought just adding "local time" would do, but this might be a little trivial given what's already raised about the local time.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:56, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  If the source doesn't say "local time", then it's WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH to add it. RoySmith (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• On the afternoon of November 2, the Key West and Tawah were sent felt a word is missing here, unless "the" is part of Key West

• Removed "the". Hog Farm _Talk 16:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

That's all for me.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

The question of "which local time" might be complicated. We're talking about events that happened in 1864. Standard time zones didn't happen until 20 years later. RoySmith (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@ZKang123: - Thanks for your review! My replies are above. Hog Farm _Talk 16:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

No other issues. Support.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 03:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• It has been some time since I reviewed Battle of Goodrich's Landing. I would be happy to review this one. MSincccc (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

General

• Could we include the relevant language template in the mainspace ("Use...English")?
  • Added, although I'm not sure how useful this is. Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Civil War operations (Early activities)

• We could link to tonnage.
  • Added. Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• was intended for use in the civilian trade between
  • Do we need "the" here?
    • Probably not; removed. Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• She was reassigned and by July was operating on the Tennessee River.
  • A comma after "reassigned"?
    • I'm not good with comma usage but I've added one just in case. Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• On July 25, while near Clifton, Tennessee, Undine struck a snag while backing off of the riverbank and sank.
  • Drop "of" here?
    • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Civil War operations (Johnsonville)

• "The sounds of the fighting caught the attention of Undine" →

"The sound of the fighting caught the attention of Undine"

• • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• Bryant ordered Undine maneuvered out of range
  • Insert "to be" before "maneuvered"?
    • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• the vessel's crew were still able to get the craft to Undine
  • How about "was" in place of "were" since "crew" is a collective noun?
    • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• Shortly thereafter another transport, J. W. Cheeseman, arrived.
  • A comma after "thereafter"?
    • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• "had got ahead of Undine" →

"had gotten ahead of Undine"

• • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• In the early 21st century the combined efforts of several private and governmental entities located the remains of Undine's burned hull.
  • How about a comma after "century"?
    • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The lead

• "was damaged and was surrendered" → "was damaged and surrendered"
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Bottom line

• @Hog Farm: That's all from me after a first full read. Interesting and also quite a fact that this is the second FAC, after Antigoneia (Syria), that I have come across in less than a month, with no more than one sub-section. Best, MSincccc (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• @MSincccc: - Thanks for your review! My replies are above. Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  All's good, Hog. Happy to support. MSincccc (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Metalicat

I should note up front that I am not a specialist in either naval or American Civil War history, so I am reading mainly for prose, clarity and the experience of a general reader.

Lead

• The first USS Undine was a tinclad warship used by the Union Navy in 1864, during the American Civil War. The opening sentence's "used by the Union Navy" undersells the article's central narrative interest, which is that Undine served briefly on both sides. The rest of the lead covers this, but the first sentence could prepare the reader for it. Something like Undine served briefly with both Union and Confederate forces during the American Civil War would do, what do you think?
  • I've gone with a slightly modified version of this. Hog Farm _Talk 21:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• The lead does not mention the final resting place. The fact that what remains of Undine is now under Kentucky Lake feels like a memorable closing detail that could earn a sentence in the lead?
  • Added. Hog Farm _Talk 21:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Infobox

• fate Captured by Confederate forces, October 30, 1864, and burned to prevent re-capture, November 4, 1864 I read this twice before realising "re-capture" meant capture by Union forces. Could be slightly clearer, e.g. ...and burned by her Confederate captors to prevent her recapture by Union forces.
  • I've gone with "and then burned by them to prevent re-capture ..." as infobox text should really be as succinct as possible. Hog Farm _Talk 21:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Johnsonville

• Tawah's commander attempted to attack Undine twice Bryant, Gracey, Kelley, Fitch and Morton are all named where they appear; Tawahs commander is not. If the name is known and not too obscure, naming for consistency would be welcome; if it is not known or not significant in this context, no problem.
  • Rephrased to avoid reference to the commander, who would have been a rather obscure low-ranking officer. Hog Farm _Talk 21:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• The cavalrymen steamed the vessels between Paris Landing and the site of Fort Heiman as operational practice. A general-reader query: I had taken "the site of" to suggest that Fort Heiman was no longer in use at this point, but my impression from a quick look at the secondary literature is that Forrest had actively reoccupied it as his artillery base on October 28 and used it to launch the very operations against Union river traffic described elsewhere in the article. If that is right, the phrasing "site of" would seem to understate the fort's role, and I wonder whether Fort Heiman (without "the site of") might be more accurate. Happy to be corrected if there is a reason for the present wording.
  • Removed "the site of" Hog Farm _Talk 21:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• A court of inquiry later cleared Bryant and his crew of any blame in the loss of Undine. This currently sits between the Johnsonville depot description and the salvage operations. I expected the court of inquiry note to sit closer to Bryant's striking the colours, since that is the event being adjudicated. Not a structural objection, just a reader-experience note.

• I've move this up to earlier in the article. Hog Farm _Talk 02:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• In the early 21st century the combined efforts of several private and governmental entities located the remains of Undine's burned hull. The closing sentence reads a little vague compared to the precision elsewhere. Which entities? What year? What was found? If the information is available, even one extra sentence would be welcome here.

• I don't have much to work with here in the sources. "What little remained of the gunboats and transports was sought early in the 21st century in a concerted effort by the state, USN, and private firms, who found a few relics and the burnt-out hull of Undine." Smith's footnotes refer to a couple of old archaeological summaries produced by Panamerican Consultants related to fieldwork from 1999. Reading between the lines this appears to be related to some fundraisin done by a local non-profit called "Raise the Gunboats"; from poking around on newspapers.com it got a few grants, raised a postwar derrick boat sometime around the year 2000 (only to have it burn down during the restoration process), and eventually fizzled out, with a final state grant indicating that by 2015 the group had been unable to perform the purpose of the grant. Hog Farm _Talk 21:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

That is everything from me. Genuinely enjoyable read, and the captured-and-recaptured arc carries the article without needing embellishment. Metalicat (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@Metalicat: - Thanks for your review! I've tried to reply to your suggestions as best as I can. Hog Farm _Talk 02:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for working through these, the article is in very good shape. Support. Metalicat (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Drive by comments by A.Cython

Great article and most have been covered by the other esteemed editors, so I only have some minor/cosmetic comments.

• You used ''Undine{{'}}''s, but MoS recommends ''Undine''{{'}}s see here. Not an expert, but the apostrophe looked weird and so I had to look into it.
  • I didn't know the MOS had a ruling on this; I've adjusted this sort of thing in 6 places in the article. Hog Farm _Talk 21:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
    • I did not know either.
• [optional] drove the Union soldiers back to the transports in confusion perhaps it reads better if you use "in disarray" ?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 21:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
• The area where Undine sank became part of Kentucky Lake in the 1940s What does this mean, artificially, naturally? I had to read the Kentucky Lake article to figure this out. I think a bit of context would help to avoid confusion.A.Cython(talk) 16:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @A.Cython: - Is "The area where Undine sank became part of Kentucky Lake in the 1940s when the area was flooded as part of a Tennessee Valley Authority project." clearer? Hog Farm _Talk 21:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Perfect!A.Cython(talk) 00:48, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Support from me even though I did not have much to offer as a reviewer.A.Cython(talk) 00:48, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments Support by Pendright

Will start soon - Pendright (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Lead'

• The first USS Undine was a tinclad warship that served with both the Union and Confederate forces during the American Civil War.

Ssuggest: The first USS Undine was a sternwheel steamer and lightly armored tinclad warship that served both Union and Confederate forces during the American Civil War.

Mostly done - I don't think it's necessary to get into the details that a tinclad warship was lightly armored in the very first sentence, which is meant really to just define the subject, especially given that tinclads are defined very early in the lead as it is. Hog Farm _Talk 14:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough! Pendright (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Built in Cincinnati, Ohio, as Ben Gaylord for civilian trade on the Ohio River, Undine was purchased by the Navy in March 1864 and renamed.

Replace Undine with the ship or it

• Done Hog Farm _Talk 14:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• In July 1864, the vessel sank after hitting a snag (submerged tree) near Clifton, Tennessee, but was refloated a week later.

It seems redundante to link snag and then explain what a snag is. Instead: In July 1864, the vessel sank after hitting a submerged tree near Clifton, Tennessee, but it was refloated a week later.

I had suggested added the explanation. Looking over Snag (ecology) (where this links), there's a lot of richness there beyond it just being a submerged tree, so I think the current phrasing works well. RoySmith (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with RoySmith's thoughts here here. Hog Farm _Talk 14:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@RoySmith: @Hog Farm: To capture both the immediate clarity and preserve that rich ecological link, what if we compromise by using the submerged tree description as the piped link text itself? For example:

the vessel sank after hitting a submerged tree near Clifton... -> This keeps the prose smooth and immediately understandable, while still pointing interested readers to the deeper ecological context. What do you think? Pendright (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

To be honest, I like the current version better. Your version is a bit of an easter egg. If I read "after hitting a submerged tree", I would assume I understood what a submerged tree was not click on the link. But if I saw "hitting a snag (submerged tree)" I would get a clue that there's something more interesting behind "snag" and if I was curious, go look to see what it was. RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Roy Smith: @Hog Farm: Thanks for the feedback. It seems we are looking at this from two completely different editorial philosophies.

My original concern was grounded in standard encyclopedic prose mechanics and WP:OVERLINK, which emphasizes keeping links directly relevant to the topic at hand. Writing "hitting a snag (submerged tree)" creates an immediate structural redundancy—defining a common riverine term in the text, then using a link to detour into an entirely separate academic subject (forest ecology) right in the middle of a tactical naval operations summary.

While the idea of a psychological "intellectual hook" for curious readers is a neat subjective perspective, my focus remains on the objective standard of clean, direct, and concise prose.

That said, I've laid out the policy-backed case for a streamlined sentence and offered a flexible piped-link compromise. Since you both prefer the current layout, I have no intention of letting a single sentence stall the momentum of this review. I will defer to the current consensus block, drop the matter, and let the phrasing stand so we can move on. Pendright (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

General

• This single paragraph should be split into two paragraphs. Paragraph 1 would cover her construction, commissioning, and standard Union service, while Paragraph 2 would deal with her capture, Confederate service, and ultimate destruction.

• Done Hog Farm _Talk 14:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Early Activities

• It is known that the vessel had two boilers,[4] but no information on her dimensions is available.[5][c]

• I don't see anything about boilers in the Info box?

• Under Propulsion, the Info Box just shows Sternwheel steamer. If it had boilers, can we assume it also had steam engines as part of its propu;sion system?

Definitionally, as a sternwheel steamer, it would have at least one marine steam engine. I don't have any good information about said engine(s) so the most information I could put in the infobox would be something like Marine steam engine(s) [line break] 2 boilers. How does that sound? Hog Farm _Talk 14:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

From my internet searches this is about as good as it gets. However, I did find this during my searches:

"Per the Navy's official statistical registry, the vessel is classified as a 'stern-wheel steamer' with '2 boilers'. Mechanically, a marine boiler's sole function is to generate steam to feed a steam engine's cylinders. Therefore, describing her propulsion as 'steam engines fed by two boilers' is the technically accurate way to translate 19th-century naval shorthand into clear, modern prose." Might consider tweaking the prose as well. Pendright (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I've made this change to the infobox for now and will think about it some more. Hog Farm _Talk 23:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Undine was taken to Mound City, Illinois, to be outfitted as a tinclad warship.[9]

taken, how?

Rephrased Hog Farm _Talk 14:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• They were not actually armored with tin—the name was used to distinguish the vessels from the more heavily-armored ironclads.[10]

Closed spaces between...

My understanding is that the current practice is okay per MOS:DASHVAR? Hog Farm _Talk 14:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Your understanding is correxct: While the em dash is unspaced the en dash is spaced. Pendright (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pendright: - I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that you think I should be using em dashes instead of en dashes here? Hog Farm _Talk 23:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Assigned to the Mississippi River Squadron after commissioning, Undine served on the Mississippi River beginning in May 1864, operating between Natchez and Fort Adams, Mississippi.

Mississippi is repeated three times in this short sentence?

I'm not sure what to do about this, given that Mississippi River and Mississippi River Squadron are both proper names and that other editors will probably expect the state geographic indicator for Natchez/Fort Adams to indicate more readily what stretch of river this was along. Hog Farm _Talk 14:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

You seem content with it as written so let it stand. However, here is one way to rephrase it: Assigned to the Mississippi River Squadron after commissioning, Undine served on the waterway beginning in May 1864, operating between Natchez and Fort Adams, Mississippi. Pendright (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• She was reassigned, and by July was operating on the Tennessee River.[7]

and by July 196? was...

1864. Added. Hog Farm _Talk 14:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• On July 25, while near Clifton, Tennessee, Undine struck a snag (submerged tree) while backing off a riverbank and sank.

Suggest: On July 25, while near Clifton, Tennessee, Undine struck a submerged tree while backing off a riverbank and sank.

See comment above. Hog Farm _Talk 14:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Same as above! Pendright (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• The commander of the 113th Illinois failed to scout the area around Eastport after landing on October 10, and the troops were ambushed by part of Forrest's command under Lieutenant Colonel David C. Kelley. Kelley's troops drove the Union soldiers back to the transports in disarray.

Change Kelly's to "His"

Done Hog Farm _Talk 14:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Johnsonville

• Running low on ammunition, Bryant ordered the ship to be abandoned and the guns spiked, of which only two were.[d]

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/u/undine-i.html states, "Bryant hauled down the flag, and surrendered Undine, Venus, and Chessman." "He was later exonerated by a board of inquiry".

@Pendright: - I'm not sure what change you're asking for here? Bryant striking his colors is already mentioned in the article two sentences later. The more detailed source (Smith) indicates that Bryant had the ship abandoned and tried to get the guns disabled before striking his colors and mentions Cheeseman and Venus being captured separately. I've found the DANFS isn't as accurate for Civil War ships as it is for WWII ships and tends to over-simplify things. Hog Farm _Talk 14:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

If I had a point it has vanished. Please disregard and accept my apology. Pendright (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• Meanwhile, a force of six tinclads–USS Curlew, USS Fairy, USS Paw Paw, USS Victory, USS Brilliant, and USS Mooseo–was coming up from the other end of the Tennessee River.[3

Close spaces between...

See related reply above. Hog Farm _Talk 14:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Same as above! Pendright (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• Undine was used as a bait to draw the Union tinclads at Johnsonville towards Forrest's artillery,[32]

Drop the a before bait -> The word bait is both plural ad singular

Done Hog Farm _Talk 14:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: This it for now Pendright (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Supporting Pendright (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Image review: Pass

Three images. They really should have alt text for MOS:ACCESSIBILITY -- though I can see "see caption" being perfectly good for the cannon. All have appropriate captions.

Alt text has been added. Hog Farm _Talk 23:32, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• File:USS Undine (1863) drawing.png: the FUR doesn't quite make sense to me. We say it's not replaceable with free media because It is a unique ship, formerly a packet steamer. However, what matters isn't the ship but the image -- have we checked that there are no free images available? The image at the top of this Reddit thread looks as though it might be from the period, and so PD -- don't know if you recognise it or the style?

  @UndercoverClassicist: - The Wenner source includes this image and attributes it to Raise the Gunboats, a 1990s/2000s nonprofit organization which tried to raise the vessel. I don't think this would be freely-licensed; I suspect that this is an illustration produced by the organization during fundraising activities. I have adjusted the NFUR rationale to focus on the image, rather than the vessel. A complicating factor is that the original uploader of the file is apparently an editor who was recently blocked for good-hand/bad-hand socking. Hog Farm _Talk 23:32, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  Looks good to me. We can't say for sure anything about it, so your statement that no free images are known to exist holds up until someone finds a counter-example, at which point the image could be swapped or we could write a new FUR to explain why that one wouldn't do. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• File:Sketch of Tennessee River in Vicinity of Reynoldsburg Island from ORN I.26.png: not sure it really needs all four PD tags, but definitely PD. There's also a minor mistake in the author name on Commons ("Lieutenant Command Le Roy Fitch"), but that's not really our problem.

  I've consolidated this down to two PD tags and have corrected the spelling error of Command for Commander and Le Roy for LeRoy. Hog Farm _Talk 23:32, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think the space in the name was correct -- in the source document both he and his correspondents use it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:38, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• File:Nathan-bedford-forrest-monument-cannon1.jpg: all good here.

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:16, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Source review

Sources seem reliable and are correctly formatted. Is any available for a check? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• I have examinations till the 28th of this month, and also Generalissima's FAC review to conclude, but I will try to leave comments (and make necessary fixes) as and when possible. Best, MSincccc (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
• I will be leaving my first batch of comments on the 20th, after my examinations that day. MSincccc (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  Hi MSincccc, I appreciate you taking the time for another review! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Hey MSincccc, just checking whether you have time for more comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  My exams conclude tomorrow. I intend to leave further comments and conclude the review as soon as I can after that. Best, MSincccc (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

General

• I would suggest adding the relevant language template ("Use... English").

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Definition

• We could link to quality of life on first mention.

  Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• It is a measure of how well a person's life is going for them.
  • Could we drop "for them"?

    It's probably better to keep it to emphasize that it's something personal and not some unrelated external standard, e.g. an unhappy but successful businessman. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Some characterizations focus on a single element, like happiness,
  • "Such as" in place of "like"?

    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• if an individual seeks a personal gain
  • Drop the "a" before personal gain?

    Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Well-being is the state that egoists seek for themselves and altruists aim to increase for others.
  • Could we do without "for themselves"?

MSincccc (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• • I prefer to keep it to emphasize the contrast between "for themselves" and "for others". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Types

• "categorized by how they are measured, who they belong to, and which domain of life they affect" → "categorized by how they are measured, whom they apply to, and which domain of life they affect"

  I implemented a slightly different reformulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• "making a global assessment that things are going well" → "making a global assessment that their life is going well"

  I kept the current formulation to not repeat the expression "their life". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• "like asking participants" → "such as asking participants"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• "amount of leisure time" → "amount of leisure"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• They have separate questions for domains such as the presence of positive affects, the absence of negative affects, and overall life satisfaction, which they combine into a comprehensive index.
  • How about "presence of positive affect, the absence of negative affect" (the singular) here?

    Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• "like low income and frail health" → "such as low income and frail health"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• "disciplines like psychology" → "disciplines such as psychology"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• "engage in physical activities" → "engage in physical activity"

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• "innate potentials" → "innate potential"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Theories of well-being

• "provide different reasons for why it is good" → "provide different reasons why it is good"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• "like the desire to eat potato chips or become famous" → "such as the desire to eat potato chips or become famous"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• "individual differences from one person to another" → "individual differences"

  I kept it since so it's clear that we are talking about differences between distinct people and not just about differences between distinct desires of the same person. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• "could lead to serious health problems and diminish well-being rather than increase it" → "could lead to serious health problems and diminish rather than increase well-being"

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• "desires in which individuals do not fully consider or understand the negative consequences" → "desires in which individuals do not fully consider or understand negative consequences"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• "depends on several different factors" → "depends on several factors"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• "in order to live well" → "to live well"

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• "actualizing their inborn potentials" → "actualizing their inborn potential"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• "the nature of well-being in children differs from that in adults" → "the nature of well-being in children differs from that of adults"

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, they postponed the final exam to the 31st. Apologies for the delay. MSincccc (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I hope your exams went well. I think we are still on schedule, but once a nomination reaches the three-week mark, the coordinates start getting a little impatient. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Mauch_Twins.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?

  I couldn't find the relevant information so I replaced the image with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Identical_twins_Tarr_Bence_L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_and_Tarr_D%C3%A1niel_(cropped).jpg

• File:A_color_coded_map_of_the_world_levels_of_happiness_as_measured_by_the_World_Happiness_Index_(2023).svg: see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  I added a footnote to convey the main information in words.

Thanks for the image review. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

750h

will review! Ping me if i don’t get to this soon 750h+ 01:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi 750h+ and thanks for reviewing this nomination! Have you had the time to take a first look? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank for the reminder; I'll look into this soon today. 750h+ 01:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

lead

No problems here.

definition

• of how well a person's life is going for them I think "for them" is redundant

  I prefer to keep it to emphasize that the benefit is for the person and not for some external purpose. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• More narrowly, well-being refers only to positive degrees and contrasts with ill-being, which denotes negative degrees. maybe change "negative degrees" to "negative ones" to avoid repetition?

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• As a person-specific value, well-being contrasts with impersonal value or value simpliciter. maybe add a comma after "impersonal value".

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• individual utility are often used as synonyms of well-being ==> "individual utility are often used as synonyms for well-being"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• for themselves and altruists aim to increase for others comma after "themselves"?

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

types

• Others combine both perspectives in their investigation to provide a more comprehensive picture and counterbalance their shortcomings. i think "in their investigation" is a bit ambiguous, and could be removed

  I agree: it's neither essential nor particularly helpful. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• community well-being is central for understanding how ==> "community well-being is central to understanding how"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Physical well-being concerns the domain of the body as the capacity to engage in physical activities and the absence of illness and bodily pain. ==> "Physical well-being concerns the domain of the body, including the capacity to engage in physical activities and the absence of illness and bodily pain."

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

theories of well-being

• They focus on the intrinsic nature of well-being, contrasting with external causes or conventional indicators used to measure it. I think something like "They focus on the intrinsic nature of well-being, rather than on external causes or conventional indicators used to measure it." flows better.

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• It states that how well a life goes for a person depends entirely on how it feels to live this life i think the repetition could be reduced. Maybe something like "It states that how well a person's life goes depends entirely on how it feels to live it".

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• These factors can include subjective components, like pleasure and desire-satisfaction, but also encompass objective factors should "encompass" be "encompasses"?

  I think "encompass" is fine because it is plural relative to "factors": "These factors can include..., but also encompass..." Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

components and contributing factors

• is more complex since they influence experience ==> "is more complex because they influence experience"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Life satisfaction is the subjective judgment of a person about how well their life is going ==> "Life satisfaction is a person's subjective judgment about how well their life is going."

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Researchers also examine how achievements and accomplishments promote well-being i think here "achievements and accomplishments" are synonymous, and can removed

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• an organism functions as it should ==> "an organism functions properly"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Related mental factors of well-being include tendencies through which people act against ==> "Related mental factors of well-being include tendencies that lead people to act against", this might flow a bit better

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

in various fields

• This inquiry focuses both on individual factors ==> "This inquiry focuses on both individual factors"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• philosophers give more emphasis to the general nature ==> "philosophers place more emphasis on the general nature"

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• people with higher income tend to be happier maybe change "income" to "incomes"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• However, well-being is not the only consideration governing medical interventions and the commitment to patient autonomy is another core principle. comma after "interventions"

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

history

• moderation and cultivation of a tranquil state of mind ==> "moderation and the cultivation of a tranquil state of mind"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• proposing a set of practical recommendations is "a set of" needed?

  Not necessarily, but I think it fits since the expression links to a group of 8 practices. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• well-being and depend on divine grace instead ==> "well-being and depend instead on divine grace"

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• the contribution of pleasure to well-being depends on the quality of the pleasure this is fine, but could there be a way to reduce the repetition of "pleasure"?

  I removed the first "of pleasure" since it should be clear in this context. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• introduced the influential distinction into hedonism ==? "introduced the influential distinction between hedonism"

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

That's all I got @Phlsph7:! Thanks for this article ! 750h+ 15:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for all the helpful suggestions! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Happy to support! 750h+ 13:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

ErnestKrause

Some short comments to get this started:

(1) It seems that there should be some comment about the best choice of perspective to start this article. On the one hand you give your opening sentence about what is "ultimately good for a person" with two citations in the main text, but then you state that there is a substantial difference between subjective and objective perspectives on the topic of defining well-being with 5 references for it in the main text. I'm going to suggest that the citation evidence pulls the argument the other way around. It might be better to do the lede from this viewpoint: state that the question of 'well-being' has substantial support for either subjective or objective interpretations in the first paragraph in the lede, and the make your case for 'ultimately good for a person' as what looks like a somewhat objective format.

I don't think that there is a conflict here since the definition remains neutral: two people can agree that well-being is defined as what is ultimately good for a person and disagree about whether subjective or objective factors are ultimately responsible. This formulation is presented as a standard definition in the first sentence of Crisp 2021. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is consistent with Guy Fletcher in either the first or second edition of his book on the philosophy of well-being. He is fairly committed to defining well-being as its related to its roots in philosophical hedonism. He seems as much an authority, perhaps moreso, than Crisp 2021. Its not a standard definition which Crisp uses. The new edition of Fletcher's book is due out in about a month as well . I'm going to side with Fletcher on this as a long standing opinion to define well-being. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Fletcher's definition aligns with our definition. From Fletcher 2015: What is distinctive about the philosophy of well-being is its focus on the question of which things in and of themselves make someone’s life go better or worse for them. It thus seeks an account of what is fundamentally, or non-instrumentally, good or bad for us and why. From Fletcher 2016: The relevant kind of evaluation I am making is in terms of well-being, about how well lives go for the person who lives them. For a similar outlook, see Hooker 2015: When I refer to contributions to well-being, I mean non-instrumental contributions, that is, things that are good for us in their own right as opposed to good only because they are means to other things.

By the way, Fletcher 2016 does not endorse hedonism as far as I'm aware. It just discusses it as one of several theories but not as a general definition: In the first chapter we examine hedonism about well-being. Roughly, the view claims that only pleasure is ultimately good for us ... Nonetheless, hedonism faces a significant set of challenges, challenges that suggest that pleasure and pain alone are not the only things that are good and bad for us. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hedonism is the subject of Fletcher's chapter one in which he sets the stage for his viewpoint and takes on the subject of defining well-being; that seems like a fairly strong endorsement of his taking 'hedonism' as his starting point for understanding well-being. I'm not sure that Fletcher would agree with your opening sentence defining well-being; it might be nice to see something closer to Fletcher's views. For example, stating that the definition of well-being starts from the perspective of philosophical hedonism and is refined by concepts in... (You can fill in the ellipses), which would be much closer to Fletcher's definition than the one you are currently using. He supports this approach in the second edition as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

In Fletcher 2016, the definition of the term well-being is presented in the introduction chapter, which comes before the hedonism chapter. Fletcher explicitly presents hedonism as one of several competing theories. There is also overwhelming support from other reliable sources that hedonism is one of several competing theories, so trying to start our article with a hedonism-biased definition is a bad idea. If you want something closer to Fletcher's wording, we could replace the expression "ultimately good" with "non-instrumentally good" if you think that this is an improvement. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

That's generous of you to offer though I might prefer to see how you would quote Fletcher directly for his definition of Well-being. In quotes if possible. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I changed the formulation and added a footnote with a quote by Fletcher. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

(2) History is covered at the end of the article rather than at the start. I'm certain that well-being can be argued to go back to Plato and Socrates all the way to the present day; shouldn't readers be told about the long history of philosophical debates about this topic at the beginning of the article? Your History section is also quite long and might need a subsection division or two for clarity of presentation.

I subdivided the history section. There are different ways to organize an article and a history section often fits in either at the beginning or at the end. I put it at the end because it does not get as much weight in overview sources as other topics. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

(3) Positive psychology is attributed to one main source, however, are Freud and Jung completely excluded from this discussion as primary sources? Both Freud and Jung spend great a great deal of time discussing aberrations from normal behavior as detrimental to well-being, and dealing with these aberrations is significant to them for attaining well-being. Is it worth covering in this article?

Freud is already mentioned in the history section. I added a sentence on Jung. Not many overview sources discuss them, so it might be better to leave further details to child articles. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Positive psychology in the viewpoint of one scholar still seems to be the center of your approach; does it represent the extent of viewpoints from other psychologists who assert the conditions for well-being and mental health in individuals. Often such individuals seeking help for related mental health issues with their sense of well-being, claim to suffer from a lack of well-being which they seek to remedy using various psychological schools and treatments. Its not clear why you are giving one scholar pride of place and centrality in your section about this topic. ErnestKrause (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Positive psychology is the branch of psychology dedicated to the study of well-being and related phenomena. It is not the view of one individual scholar. Our section discusses various types of interventions. It is not limited to one specific school or treatment. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

For some reason you single out one and only one positive psychologist with the words: "Martin Seligman is one of the founding fathers of positive psychology". That seems to single him out, which I'm not sure is justified. I'm not really seeing why Seligman and positive psychology is more important than Jung and Freud for understanding well-being. It seems the other way around would make more sense. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The section is about a branch of psychology, not about Seligman, who is not mentioned in the section text. The image is not essential and I'm open to using a different one without Seligman if you know of something better that is relevant to the section. Regarding relative weight, overview sources on well-being give very little weight to Freud and Jung. One reason may be that their theories are controversial since they are often based on anecdotal impressions rather than controlled, evidence-based research. For this reason, I think Freud and Jung fit better into the history section, where they are currently discussed. If you have a specific fact about them that you think should be included, we can look into it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

(4) Sections of 'Other fields' and 'Other components' in this article are really fairly long; possibly add some subsections for clarity. Otherwise they might lean towards being seen as a potpourri or catch-all sections.

I found a way to subdivide the subsection "Other components". Generally speaking, those two subsections are basically catch-all sections for topics in a certain area that should be mentioned but do not fit well into existing subsections and are not important enough to merit separate subsections. I hope their length is acceptable now. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

(5) Is it possible to discuss 'well-being' without any mention of the effect which 'world-view' would have on an individual or cultural assessment of whether well-being is being attained or not. World-view it seems ought to be covered in the article as a significant topic.

I added a footnote, but this is not one of the main research topics. Our article covers several related factors that are more commonly discussed in the academic discourse, such as thought patterns. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Its difficult for many readers to see their world-views as being separated or divorced from the discussion of their well-being; I mean if your world-view is inconsistent with your experience in life then its fairly plain that there will be problems for ones sense of well-being. Could you double check the link to world-view for matching and useful comparisons? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Worldviews typically mold experience. I guess it's possible to have inconsistencies, but the relation between these inconsistencies and well-being seems to be a very narrow topic better left to discussions in child articles. I don't think our article Worldview discusses this. According to WP:PROPORTION, the weight given to subjects should reflect reliable sources, not personal opinions. I checked the following overview sources, they don't have any substantial discussions of worldviews and most don't even mention the term: Crisp 2021; Bradley 2015; Fletcher 2015; Fletcher 2016; Hooker 2015; Huppert, Baylis & Keverne 2005; and Layard & Neve 2023. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

That should start things off. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello ErnestKrause and thanks for your comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Some follow-up points. Guy Fletcher's second edition of his well-being book is due out in about one month; see comments above. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

There are some preprints and advanced pages from the second edition if you might want to look at them before the formal publication date in early July. ErnestKrause (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Why should be cite an unpublished edition when a published edition is available? Phlsph7 (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

You can read his own explanation in the Preview tab on the Amazon book page I linked for the 2nd edition; he seems to make the case that he made extensive changes with good reasons for updating the old edition. Could you read the preview pages available on the linked page at Amazon? ErnestKrause (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Changes along these lines, such as updating further reading sections or adjusting discussion questions at the end of chapters, are common for new editions. Content changes seem to be in chapters that are not relevant to our discussion so far. There are countless books on well-being, many with several editions. I fail to understand why you place so much importance on the 2nd edition of this particular book and try to focus our whole discussion around it, especially given that it hasn't even been published yet. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

FM

• Looks interesting, some preliminary comments, will continue soon. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Kerguelen Islands and mackerel icefish are WP:duplinked.

  Fixed. --MCE

• "Heard claimed the island for the United States" was he American himself then?

  Yes, now specified. -- MCE

• "one was led by the Swiss geologist Edgar Aubert de la Rüe" since you mention his nationality, you could mention it for the few other people mentioned throughout the article. And perhaps even nationalities of the ships for context.

  Done. --MCE

• "In 1854 Captain William McDonald sighted the McDonald Islands aboard the ship Samarang. A party of sealers led by Captain Erasmus Darwin Rogers" As above.

  Also done. --MCE

• Link sealers and perhaps whaling.

  I think both of these are already linked on first mention. --MCE

• "19th century drawing of Heard Island" why not use the exact year, as present on the file page?

  Good point, done. --MCE

• "After Britain's transfer of the Australian Antarctic Territory to Australia in 1933, the Australian government began preparing to take possession of Heard Island and the McDonald Islands" perhaps too far off the scope, but why did the UK willingly transfer possession?

  Added a sentence on this. The reasons are somewhat complex, but a high level it was because Australia's geographic position made the claim to its sector of Antarctica more defensible, and because Australia was better placed to manage the territories logistically. --MCE

• "Four species of breeding penguin on Heard Island" perhaps add "the" at the beginning to make clear there aren't others?

  Done. --MCE

• The McDonald Islands article is short and pretty much unsourced, holding little unique info. Any reason why it doesn't just redirect here, like Heard Island does?

  I think I agree that it should just redirect here, but oddly enough it's a level 5 VA so I can't really try a bold BLAR. I might open a discussion to see if anyone’s opposed to redirecting it. --MCE

I think that would be worthwhile, now that article is just a dead-end WP:content fork to unsourced information. So it shouldn't be a too controversial proposal. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• While it might go without saying, I wonder if the article should explicitly state the islands are named after the respective persons mentioned in the article who saw them first.

  Good idea, done. --MCE

• First you say "Various non-native species have been present on Heard Island in the past, including dogs, sheep, and a rat, but none have established a presence on the island." but later you say "A non-native grass, Poa annua, has significantly expanded its presence on the island" and "Three of the invertebrate species found on Heard Island are not native to the island", so what is meant here? They introduced themselves?

  It's a fair question, I realise now I've explained this a bit clumsily throughout the section. I've clarified that first bit to "non-native animal species have been brought onto Heard Island by humans in the past". I've also tried to make the language on this point a bit more specific throughout the section. --MCE

• I think the caption of the Heard Island cormorant image could specify it's unique to the island, as that's a pretty significant fact.

  Done. --MCE

• You start the mammals section with "There are 26 species of marine mammals in the Heard Island and McDonald Islands region, including the southern right whale and the pygmy blue whale", and then after some text about various other species, you return to "Seventeen species of cetacean have been observed". Why are cetaceans not listed together?

  Grouped these together. --MCE

• "Southern elephant seals are the most common mammal species on Heard Island.[84] A 1999 study estimated that the population of elephant seals on Heard Island declined" I don't think you need to repeat Heard Island in the second sentence.

  Removed. --MCE

• "its largest fish is the southern sleeper shark, Somniosus antarcticus" why give both common and scientific names for some species but not most others?

  Removed the scientific name here. --MCE

• "Some of these, including several species of beetle and a species of weevil, are found only on Heard Island" I think it would be relevant to name some or all endemic species in the text.

  On second thought I've removed this sentence, since it doesn't seem to be mentioned by any of the higher-quality sources about the invertebrate fauna and I suspect Valentine is using some outdated studies here. --MCE

• "The island is home to very few winged insects" technically all the beetles you mentioned just before that have wings as well, so perhaps "flying" or such is meant?

  Yep, changed to "flying". --MCE

• "The islands are home to one non-native plant species, Poa annua, which is believed to have been naturally introduced from the Kerguelen Islands by seabirds." Isn't that a natural introduction then, like most other non-endemic (or any species) there?

  It is, but the sources all describe it as a naturally introduced but non-native species. My understanding is that this is because it was naturally introduced from the Kerguelen Islands where it's an invasive introduced species. --MCE

• Support - looking good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Heard_Island_and_McDonald_Islands_map.png: what's the source of the data presented in this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the image review Nikkimaria! I've replaced that map with File:Heard Island and McDonald Islands-CIA WFB Map.png. MCE89 (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

CMD

This is interesting work, my immediate thought when thinking about what this article might need to be at an FA level is comprehensiveness. There's some high-level sentences that tantalise that further information is out there (eg. "Brief scientific expeditions to Heard Island took place in 1874, 1902, and 1929, with their observations limited to the north-western side of the island"), and the article is not facing space constraints. There's no explicit mention of territorial waters, which at the least partially inform the reserve boundaries (I think this is what is implied by "fishing is prohibited within the waters nearest to the island", although the actual shape of the reserve is not so simple). I don't see an explicit mention that the Australian EEZ abuts the French one here, although the close location of the two territories is mentioned. The article also doesn't mention the massive continental shelf claim (2004 proposal, 2012 proclamation). It may be worth grouping Structures under Governance, and perhaps add current research and keep fisheries there, to create a consolidated Human activity section. CMD (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this @Chipmunkdavis! With regards to your first point about the 1874, 1902, and 1929 expeditions, I'm not sure there's too much else to be said on those — I've added a sentence saying that one of the expeditions was forced to stay a few days longer than planned due to the weather, but beyond that my sources don't have much to say about them. If there's anywhere else you noticed that you feel may be lacking detail, definitely happy to work on filling in any gaps. It's a good point regarding the maritime territorial claim — I've added a paragraph going over that more explicitly, including a mention of the extended continental shelf. I've also reshuffled the sections to create a "Human activity" section per your suggestions. MCE89 (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Quick comment

• "The islands are home to one non-native plant species, Poa annua, which is believed to have been naturally introduced from the Kerguelen Islands by seabirds." —> You are missing the “been”. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:42, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  Fixed, thanks! MCE89 (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Comments to follow. MSincccc (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• I will be providing my first batch of comments on the 20th, after my examinations that day. In the meantime, I have made a few minor revisions to the prose. MSincccc (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks MSincccc, and good luck with your exams! MCE89 (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

History

• Could we link to "British government"?

  Added. --MCE

• The first confirmed sighting of Heard Island took place in 1853 when the island was sighted
  • Could we avoid the use of "sighting...sighted"?

    Done. --MCE

• Could we drop "ship" when we use "aboard"?

  Done. --MCE

• "conducted a range of research" → "conducted research"

  Done. --MCE

MSincccc (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Human activity

• "The islands and the surrounding waters are a strict nature reserve" → "The islands and the surrounding waters form a strict nature reserve"

  Done --MCE

• The territory is uninhabited by humans.
  • Could we drop "by humans"?

    Dropped and integrated "uninhabited" into the previous sentence. --MCE

• The Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 acts as the main legislative framework for the environmental conservation of the territory.
  • How about "serves as" in place of "acts as"?

    Yep, swapped. --MCE

• There are typically about 1–3 vessels harvesting Patagonian toothfish, primarily using longlines, and about 2–5 vessels harvesting mackerel icefish,
  • Could we avoid repeating "harvesting"?

    Done. --MCE

• Australian civilian and military vessels have conducted patrols in the waters surrounding the islands to deter and respond to this illegal fishing.
  • Drop "this"?

    Done. --MCE

MSincccc (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Geography

• are located in the southern Indian Ocean
  • Drop "located"?

    Done. --MCE

• A 2021 study estimated that the age of two samples of lava taken from the volcano sat at around 11,100 and 23,900 years.
  • How about "was around" in place of "sat at around"?

    Done. --MCE

• A 2025 glacier mapping study identified around 30 glaciers in total.
  • Drop "in total"?

    Done. --MCE

• "Another of the island's glaciers" → "Another glacier"

  Done. --MCE

• Flows of lava with lengths of 250–2000 metres (820–6560 ft) have occurred an average of roughly once per year since 2008.
  • Could we drop either "average" or "roughly"?

    Yep, dropped average. --MCE

• terminate in moraines; these moraines are primarily composed of
  • Could we avoid repeating "moraines"?

    Dropped the second. --MCE

MSincccc (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Biodiversity

• although it is likely that there are others present that have not yet been recorded.
  • Drop "present"?

    Done. --MCE

• Due to their harsh climate and conditions, the islands have relatively low species diversity.
  • Could we do without"conditions" here?

    Dropped the clause. --MCE

• The majority of the flora species on Heard Island are non-flowering plants
  • How about "The majority of the flora on Heard Island" or "The majority of the plant species on Heard Island"?

    Went with the second. --MCE

• Due to the harsh climate, the insect population declines by more than 95 percent from its summer peak during the winter each year.
  • "Each winter" in place of "winter each year"?

    Done. --MCE

• Fur seals were likely eradicated or nearly eradicated
  • Could we avoid repeating "eradicated"?

    Done. --MCE

MSincccc (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Lead and everything I had missed out till now

• Could we link to "Australian government" and "Nature reserve"?

  Done. --MCE

• It is located about 4000 kilometres
  • Could we drop "located" here?

    Done. --MCE

• the territory is composed of a group of sub-Antarctic volcanic islands that lie on the Kerguelen Plateau
  • Do we need "group" with "composed of"?

    Done. --MCE

• Heard Island and the McDonald Islands are known for their harsh climate and conditions,
  • Drop "conditions"?

    Done. --MCE

Bottom line

• MCE89 It's taken some time coming, but that should be all from me. A fine read, and thanks for this article. Best, MSincccc (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review MSincccc! I think I've gotten to all of these. MCE89 (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Everything looks good now—happy to support. MSincccc (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Michael Aurel: source review (passed)

Nice to see another Australia-related article here. I'll swing by soon and do the source review. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The following is one content-related matter I wondered about when going through the sources. I'm not doing a prose review, so I've put it at the top:

• Do we discuss the individual islands which make up the McDonald Islands? As far as I can tell, we only mention McDonald Island and Flat Island in this sentence: Between 1994 and 2004, McDonald Island grew from about 1 square kilometre (0.39 sq mi) to 2.5 square kilometres (0.97 sq mi) and became joined to the nearby Flat Island by an isthmus. We don't seem to mention Meyer Rock, nor do we seem to mention Needle Island or South Island (although judging by this source the last two might not actually be islands?). There may well be good reasons for this, but it did surprise me a little, given that the McDonald Islands seemingly comprise a small number of islands.

  Good point, added the names of the three islands explicitly. --MCE

Survey

I've looked over the sources cited in the article, and all of them seem to be reliable. The bulk of the sources are articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, with some books and scholary reports mixed in. There are a handful of websites and online articles, all of which seem to come from reputable organisations. Four news articles are included, but they are only used in one sentence about contemporary politics and the newspapers are reliable. Just one query:

• Who is the Alan Kerr cited in the article? The source appears to be a government report of some kind; the contents don't look unreliable, but I wasn't able to verify that the author is a qualified scholar.

  Kerr was a public servant for the Department of External Territories who wrote the book as what seems to have been a quasi-official history of Australia's territorial acquisitions. He wasn't a scholar per se, but the book is reasonably well-cited by scholars, and the one scholarly review I can access is positive (Alan Kerr’s monumental work unearths a fascinating story of little-known aspects of Australian history. It is not intended as light bedside reading, although the snippets of parliamentary debate will amuse many. Rather, it is a most valuable reference work, a significant contribution to our constitutional history and an indispensable resource to those researching the constitutional background to the external territories.). --MCE

  Wonderful. That works for me. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

The article seems to have much of the important scholarship: the roughly 900-page Springer book is present, and probably a majority of the articles I came across were already cited. I did find a non-trivial number of sources that weren't, though. Unfortunately, I don't have the requisite knowledge of the article's subject or of the relevant fields to provide any hugely insightful commentary. As such, I'll need your assessment of how much of an omission the below represents, if indeed you think it represents an omission at all.

• Heard Island: Southern Ocean Sentinel (2006), edited by Ken Green and Eric Woehler. To me, this one seems like the biggest omission. It's an edited volume comprising chapters by numerous relevant experts. David W. H. Walton, in his review of the volume, describes it as follows: The editors of this book have both been closely associated with research on the island and in 15 chapters have tried to bring together a synthesis of everything that is currently known, using virtually all the experts available. Many chapters also deal with the nearby McDonald Islands. Unfortunately, I don't have access to it and I can't see it online, so getting your hands on it might be a little tricky.

  I managed to get my hands on this book at the library right as I was finishing writing this, and while I didn't have enough time with it to do a completely thorough reading, I didn't end up finding much in the book that hadn't already been covered in one of the other sources I'd already used. I believe I've read or cited other papers written by almost all of the chapters' authors, and there didn't seem to be much worth noting that was unique to the book. I can request it again from the library and find some places to work it in as a source if needed, but I don't think it has anything that's a major omission from the article. --MCE

  That perhaps surprises me a little, but if you've already looked through the book and you came away with the impression that it didn't include much that wasn't already covered by the sources in the article, then I'm happy with that. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Jane Barling, Steven L. Goldstein and Ian A. Nicholls, "Geochemistry of Heard Island (Southern Indian Ocean): Characterization of an Enriched Mantle Component and Implications for Enrichment of the Sub-Indian Ocean Mantle", doi:10.1093/petrology/35.4.1017. This one has 37 pages, covering the geochemistry of the island. It's one of a few that I found on the subject (eg. see Antarctic Earth Science and Fox et al. below), so it's possible the article should have a little more coverage of this.

  Agreed, I've added a bit from the source to the geology section. --MCE

• Antarctic Earth Science: Fourth International Symposium (1983), edited by R. L. Oliver and P. R. James. This one has two articles that relate to Heard Island and the McDonald Islands: I. Clarke, I. McDougall and D.J. Whitford, "Volcanic Evolution of Heard and McDonald Islands, Southern Indian Ocean"; and P. G. Quilty, S. Shafik, A. McMinn, H. Brady and I. Clarke, "Microfossil Evidence for the Age and Environment of Deposition of Sediments of Heard and McDonald Islands".
• Dana M. Bergstrom, R. D. Seppelt (1989), "The Moss Flora of Heard Island: Revised Checklist, Annotations and Phytogeographical Considerations", JSTOR 20149684

  Added a bit from this source to expand on the section on the moss flora. --MCE

• G. M. Budd (1972), "Breeding of the Fur Seal at McDonald Islands, and Further Population Growth at Heard Island", doi:10.1515/mamm.1972.36.3.423

  I think the article gives a fair amount of detail on the fur seal population trend already, so I'm not sure that this would add too much. I'm not opposed to adding it as an additional data point if you think it'd be useful, but the paragraph is already relatively crowded with other population surveys. --MCE

• Jan Lundqvist (1988), "Notes on till and Moraine Formation at Some Heard Island Glaciers", doi:10.2307/521074

  I'd initially discarded this one while collecting sources thinking it was too specific/technical, but on another reading there's quite a bit of good stuff in here. Added a few sentences from this into the section on glaciers. --MCE

• Dana Bergstrom, Patricia Selkirk (1997), "Distribution of Bryophytes on Subantarctic Heard Island", JSTOR 3244503

  Added a bit from this into the section on mosses as well. --MCE

• Jonathan I. Charney and Lewis M. Alexander (1993), "Australia (Heard/McDonald Islands)-France (Kerguelen Islands)", doi:10.1163/9789047441595_002

  I'm not sure this one would really add much — to me it seems to essentially boil down to saying that Australia and France reached a maritime border agreement, and I think the technical details of the surveying etc. would be a bit off-topic. --MCE

• Jocelyne M. R. Hughes (1987), "The Distribution and Composition of Vascular Plant Communities on Heard Island", doi:10.1007/BF00259203

  This is one of the commented out sources at the bottom that I read but didn't end up finding a good use for. It ended being largely redundant to the later research by Bergstrom and Selkirk, which built on and mostly superceded Hughes' descriptions of the plant communities. --MCE

• J. M. Fox et al. (2024), "McDonald Islands Phonolitic Lavas: Evidence for Zonation of the Kerguelen Plume", doi:10.1029/2024GC011854

  This one was great, thanks for pointing it out. Added a bit from this to the section on geology. --MCE

• Kevin Kiernan and Anne McConnell (2002), "Glacier retreat and melt-lake expansion at Stephenson Glacier, Heard Island World Heritage Area", doi:10.1017/S0032247400017988

  Added a couple of details from this to the section on glaciers. --MCE

• Ruddell, Andrew (2006), "An inventory of present glaciers on Heard Island and their historical variation" (Edit: actually, this would seem to be one of the chapters of the aforementioned 2006 edited volume; this one's accessible online. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC))

  I think the more recent 2025 glacier mapping study largely covers the same ground at a high level, and the details on the recession of specific glaciers would probably be getting a little too into the weeds. --MCE

• Lorne K. Kriwoken, Peter R. Hay, and Peter L. Keage (2015), "Environmental policy implementation: sea dumping off sub-Antarctic Heard Island, Australia", doi:10.1080/07266472.1989.11083350

  This one was published in 1989 and most of the information feels a bit too outdated to be of much use. The specific sea dumping incident it describes doesn't seem to have had much of a lasting impact and feels like it would be a bit of a tangent to me. --MCE

• Dirk C. Welsford, Steven G. Candy, Timothy D. Lamb, Gabrielle B. Nowara, Andrew J. Constable and Richard Williams (2011), "Habitat use by Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides Smitt 1898) on the Kerguelen Plateau around Heard Island and the McDonald Islands". This was one of multiple articles I found about the Patagonian toothfish; should they possibly be mentioned a bit more? (I notice that they're included in the "Fishery" section, but not in the "Fish" section.)

  Good point — added a paragraph on the Patagonian toothfish to the "Fish" section using this and a few other sources. --MCE

These are the sources I found which seemed most useful. Let me know what you think. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this, this is great! I've replied to a couple of points, and I'll have a read through the rest of the additional sources you've suggested and see what might be worth adding from them over the next couple of days. MCE89 (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Bibliography

Most of the above seems as though it's been churned through, so I'll take a look at the bibliography and formatting:

• In general, the citation scheme is consistent. Books, scholarly articles and the like are in the bibliography, whereas websites and news articles are given amongst the citations. Some full citations for scholarship are included in the "Citations" section, though. Is a particular standard being followed? My guess is that we give the full citation in the "Citations" if we only cite one page or page range from the work, but we include it in the bibliography if we cite multiple? But Slip & Burton seems only to be cited once (Slip & Burton 1999, p. 38), for example, so is this standard only being applied to books?

  My approach was that any paginated source longer than 2 pages went in the bibliography, and anything shorter got a long citation. There are a couple of scholarly sources (e.g. Greenslade 1998) that were only a page or two, so I just went with long citations for those. --MCE

  Ah, makes sense. You're consistent, so that's perfectly fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Whinam, Jennifer; Shaw, Justine D. (2018) would normally go after Whinam, Jennifer (1989), as the latter has the earlier date and a co-author.

  Fixed the ordering here. --MCE

• We exclude the location in most of the citations for books, but we seem to include it for Hughes, Janet; Lazer, Estelle (1998) and Greenslade, Penelope (1998).

  Removed. --MCE

• As far as I know, the general recommendation is to use the ISBN found in the book itself. For books published before 2007, this will be a 10-digit ISBN unless you're viewing a reprint. Citations for which this might be relevant are Mills, William James (2003), Hughes, Janet; Lazer, Estelle (1998), Greenslade, Penelope (1998), Carney, Gerard (2006), Scott, J. J. (1990), Shaughnessy, P. D.; Shaughnessy, G. L.; Keage, P. L. (1988).

  Switched all of these to 10-digit ISBNs. --MCE

• "Heard Island and McDonald Islands". The World Factbook (2025 ed.). Central Intelligence Agency. – Are we treating the CIA World Factbook as an online source or a print source? If the former, I'd probably include a retrieval date; if the latter, I'd probably include an ISBN or something along those lines.

  Expanded to a full web citation. --MCE

• Regarding doi:10.1657/1523-0430(06-084)[THOST]2.0.CO;2 (inactive 12 May 2026) for Thost, Douglas E.; Truffer, Martin (2008): you could simply include a direct link to Taylor & Francis's website (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1657/1523-0430%2806-084%29%5BTHOST%5D2.0.CO%3B2), as the whole thing seems to be free to access there.

  Added the URL. I'm not sure what's going on with the broken/inactive DOI, but it seems to possibly be something to do with the punctuation inside the DOI? I've removed it again for now, but it seems to keep getting added back during citation bot runs. --MCE

  For what it's worth, I think you can vanquish the bot using "{{bots|deny=Citation bot}}". – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• A few places where title case should probably be used, as it's used elsewhere: "Australian Antarctic Program completes landmark Heard Island and McDonald Islands Campaign", "Australian Antarctic Program heads to Heard Island", "Protection and management – Heard Island and McDonald Islands", "Human activities – Heard Island and McDonald Islands", "Location and geography – Heard Island and McDonald Islands", "Climate and weather – Heard Island and McDonald Islands".

  All fixed. --MCE

• Hughes, Janet; Lazer, Estelle (1998). "The Importance of "Historic Sites" on Heard Island for Protection of Scientific Resources and Environmental Management of a World Heritage Site". Single quotes for quotes in quotes, I think.

  Done. --MCE

• Hughes, Janet; Lazer, Estelle (2000). "Importance of "Historic Sites" on Heard Island for Protection of Scientific Resources and Environmental Management of a World Heritage Site". – Same as above.

  Done. --MCE

• Whinam, Jennifer (1989). "Structure and Oristic Composition of the Heard Island "Pool Complex" Community" – Same as above.

  Done. --MCE

• We seem to link "Commonwealth of Australia" in most places, but not in Kerr, Alan (2009).

  Linked. --MCE

• Shaughnessy, P. D.; Shaughnessy, G. L.; Keage, P. L. (1988). "Fur-seals at Heard Island: Recovery from Past Exploitation?". In Augee, Michael L. (ed.). Marine Mammals of Australasia: Field Biology and Captive Management. CSIRO Publishing. doi:10.7882/RZSNSW.1988.014. ISBN 978-0-9599951-4-5. – Seems to be missing page numbers.

  Added the page range. --MCE

• Just noting that we have Hughes, Janet; Lazer, Estelle (1998). "The Importance of "Historic Sites" on Heard Island for Protection of Scientific Resources and Environmental Management of a World Heritage Site". from the book Heard Island Wilderness Reserve: Reports on Natural Science and Cultural Heritage Research in the citations, and an identically named article by the same authors from Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania. Are these the same article, or are there some differences between the two?

  The first is a shorter version/abstract of the latter, but it turns out the claim that I was citing the 1998 paper for is also in the 2000 article so it probably makes sense to just cite that instead. Removed the 1998 one. --MCE

• If you don't combine the two citations mentioned in the previous comment, note that Estelle Lazer can be linked in the 1998 work.
• You could link Europa World Year Book.

  Linked. --MCE

• Link Richard Arculus.

  Linked. --MCE

All in all, the bibliography and citations are fairly immaculate for an article with this number of sources. I'll round off the review with the spot checks soon, hopefully tomorrow. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Spot checks

As of this version of the article.

• 2a & 3a: All good.
• 1b: Unfortunately, I don't have access to Mills' book. Would you be able to supply a quote? Thanks.

  The quote from Mills is: During the next twenty-five years, more than 100,000 barrels of elephant seal oil were obtained by American sealers, who also compiled a fine map of the island. It looks like I mixed up some citation placement here though — the first sentence of the paragraph is actually supported by McIvor 2007: The first landing at Heard Island was by a sealing expedition in February 1855, and over 40 vessels made more than 100 voyages to the island in the following three decades seeking oil from Southern Elephant Seals Mirounga leonina. Now fixed. --MCE

• 8a: Fine, I think.
• 1c, 10a, & 11: Schmieder and Budd verify the first part. I'm guessing that their observations limited to the north-western side of the island is coming from Mills?

  That's coming from Budd: Scientific observations were made—at the northwestern end of the island only—by the Challenger expedition in 1874, by the Gauss expedition in 1902, and by Aubert de la Rue and the British, Australian and New Zealand Antarctic Research Expedition (BANZARE) in 1929 --MCE

  Yup, no problem. Not sure how I missed it. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• 13 & 14: Beck more or less covers it. I've read through the relevant pages from Dodds and it's not clear to me where the relevant part is. Australia is mentioned a few times on p. 47, where Dodds is saying something a bit different to the article, and the only other mention is on p. 49, where it's part of a quote. Let me know if I'm missing something.

  Removed Dodds, agree that it's not really needed. --MCE

• 10d & 17b: The first part's all good. Regarding the second: the article has seven ANARE parties, each of which spent 12–14 months on the island and the source has The wintering parties usually left Australia in late December or early January, and returned some 15 months later. Is our claim in some way factoring the time taken to get there and back?

  That's coming from the table on Schmieder p.85, which has Continuous occupation by 7 wintering parties, each of 9 - 14 men for 12 - 14 months. --MCE

• 24 & 25a: All good.
• 35: All good.
• 43b & 46a: No problems with the EEZ part, but I'm struggling to find the Reserve's area. Constable et al. say that The Reserve now covers 71,200 km2 of the Australian EEZ, but they were writing in 2024, so perhaps that figure's out of date? I wasn't able to find the 381,000 figure on IUCN's website, though I'm not entirely confident that I'm looking in the right spot.

  The IUCN source has The site forms part of the Heard Island and McDonald Islands (HIMI) Commonwealth Marine Reserve that was declared in October 2002 and extended in 2014 to 71,000 km2 to incorporate additional marine areas of high conservation value. This Reserve is being managed pursuant to the Heard Island and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve Management Plan 2014-2024. In January 2025 the Australian Government expanded the Reserve to include additional 310,000km2, so I was using this for the 71,000 + 310,000 = 381,000 sqkm claim per WP:CALC. I see now that says explicitly that the area is about 380,000 sqkm though, so I've swapped that in instead. --MCE

  I was Ctrl+F-ing for "381", which explains it. This is all good, then. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• 47: All good.
• 56: Assuming I'm reading the source correctly, this is fine.
• 69, 70, & 71: All good.
• 73: All good.
• 81: A bit picky, but the source only says that the artefacts were brought to Australia, mentioning that the blubber press is in a museum, whereas the article says that the artefacts removed from the island were taken to museums in Australia.

  Tweaked the wording to specify that the blubber press is what's in the museum. --MCE

• 4d, 82c, & 87a: All good.
• 94: All good.
• 101 & 100b: They're definitely talking about relevant information, but it's not clear to me what the exact parts are that verify the information in the article. Could you perhaps quote those bits?

  Quilty p.4 has Throughout the history of the Plateau (fig. 4), over 115 million years, it is likely that vegetated islands have stood above sea level. Volcanism probably was active through all this time somewhere on the Plateau. and Fox p.36 has The Kerguelen Plateau is a Cretaceous large igneous province (LIP) produced by voluminous basaltic eruptions in response to the formation of the Kerguelen hotspot during the separation of the Indian, Australian, and Antarctic Plates and the subsequent formation of the modern Indian Ocean. The Kerguelen hotspot is understood to be the key driver of volcanism on Heard Island. I think together those support the overall claim that volcanic activity on the plateau has created various islands, which include Heard Island. --MCE

  Yep, those were the parts I thought we were referencing. I'm still not completely certain about this one, but I'm happy to attribute my lingering uncertainty to a lack of knowledge in the field. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• 83f, 98b, 111: All good.
• 98d, 114: No problem regarding the website. For Tielidze, Mackintosh & Yang, I think we should be citing p. 2685 rather than pp. 2677–2679? Tielidze, Mackintosh & Yang give a slightly different number and slightly different years than the website; personally, I'd follow the former source.

  Fixed the page number and changed the claim to match what's given by Tielidze, Mackintosh & Yang. --MCE

• 115 & 116: All good.
• 60c & 120: All good.
• 125: The source says that Glaciation on Heard Island may have occurred as early as the Miocene, whereas the article has Heard Island has been covered by glaciers since the Miocene epoch. I think we need to retain the uncertainty. Otherwise, this one's fine.

  Oops, good point. Fixed. --MCE

• 43h & 95b: Both sources verify that it has low species diversity, but I don't think (unless I'm missing it on the website?) either specifies that this is Due to their harsh climate and conditions.

  Removed, I think I was reading a bit too much into the source there. --MCE

• 147: All good.
• 154 & 155a: No problems, although the cited page of Scott & Kirkpatrick isn't adding much. Not a big deal, but the linked version on Figshare seems to have different pagination (it goes from p. 314 to p. 328) to the version given by Taylor & Francis, which confused me for a moment.

  Removed Scott & Kirkpatrick and the link. --MCE

• 161 & 162: Fine, I think.
• 164b: I don't have access to Valentine, so I might need a quote.

  Here's the quote: The petrels dominate, with 7 breeding species and another 15 or so species recorded in the area. The wandering albatros — the world’s largest, with a three-metre wingspan—has been recorded breeding on the island, but numbers are low. The much smaller and more abundant black-browed albatross also breeds on the island. As with most remote subantarctic islands, the coastal shelf provides extensive breeding areas for the seabirds. --MCE

  Thanks. No problems here, then. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• 39d & 169: Schmieder mostly covers the sentence, though he doesn't seem to say that it's the world's largest colony (even though this wouldn't be surprising!). He's also talking about Heard Island and McDonald Island; the article only specifies the former, unless we're treating the latter as implicitly included? As far as I can tell, the UNESCO website doesn't mention Macaroni penguins.

  Changed "Heard Island" to "Heard Island and McDonald Islands". I'm not sure how the "world's largest colony" claim got in there - I definitely remember reading it somewhere, but I must have cited the wrong source and you're right that it's not in the UNESCO one. Removed for now, but I'll have another look through my sources and see if I can track down where I got it from. --MCE

• 171: All good.
• 178: All good.
• 183: All good.

That's all from me. There are a few quibbles and queries about verification, but most are pretty minor and there's clearly nothing major to be concerned about. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@MCE89: I'm happy to sign off on this one. There are a few sources left over in the "Survey" section which you can use if you please, but I think by now the article well and truly has all the important scholarship. I have ample evidence to say that this one's good to go, so I'll let others jump in and provide their comments on what is clearly a high-quality piece of work. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review, appreciate it! And apologies my slowness in getting to the rest of those suggested sources - I've finished going through them now and have incorporated most of the remainder. MCE89 (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson

It's good to see a vital article getting this attention. I'll make points as they occur to me.

1. The map in the infobox is primarily a map of Australia. Naive readers might suppose that the big red islands (Australia and Tasmania) are the islands in question. I shall try replacing it with a map that is better focussed on the H&M islands, being specifically designed to show their location on the globe. Note that there are multiple versions of that with different coloration. See Maps of Heard Island and McDonald Islands for the full selection. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh good call, that map looks much better! Thanks for making that swap. MCE89 (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: I agree that the map should be focused on the islands, and a globe is the best way to show its position. But I think it should also highlight Australia in a different color, as the position relative to the mainland is relevant information. Following a color scheme used for other articles, it could have H&M in red and Australia in beige. Perhaps we also add an inset? I can create this map image if others support it. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin: That sounds great to me. I definitely don't have the skill to make something like that, but would be very happy with swapping it in if you're willing to make a new image :) MCE89 (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• 
  Original
• 
  better
• 
  best?