Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Agnosticism/archive1

Comment by Howardcorn33

• File:Postcard portrait of Maimonides by Meir Kunstadt, early 1900s.jpg

As I uploaded the above image, I am involved and will not be able to perform an image review. However, I would like to refer the future image reviewer to these references for why I believe the postcard is public domain. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 12:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Metalicat

My second look at this article. Reviewing prose, Manual of Style and citation mechanics. The article is clear and well organised, and the structure makes a difficult subject easy to follow. A few points:

• Lead: It overlaps with skepticism and fallibilism, which deny that knowledge or absolute certainty is possible. The "Skepticism and fallibilism" section is clear that fallibilism "rejects the conclusion that knowledge is unattainable", so it denies certainty but not knowledge. As written, the lead reads as though both views deny knowledge. Could the two be separated more clearly here?

  I changed it to "is related to" to avoid implying that they share more common ground than they actually do. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Lead and body: the lead has nonreligious while the body uses "non-religious" throughout. Worth settling on one form.

  Fixed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Definition: in the etymology, the commas before the transliterations, as in ἀ-, (a-) and γνῶσις, (gnōsis), make the sentence read a little awkwardly. Would it be smoother without them?

  It's awkward because the comma is between the term and its transliteration. I moved the commas. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Skepticism and fallibilism: which is a doubt toward knowledge claims. "Doubt toward" reads slightly oddly; doubt about knowledge claims may be more natural.

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Ancient and medieval: without extending this scepticism towards the existence of Allah. The article is tagged for American English and uses "skepticism" and "toward" everywhere else, so shouldn't this should read "skepticism toward"?

  Good catch. Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Ancient and medieval, the Meister Eckhart footnote: (c. 1260–1328) omits the era marker that the surrounding medieval figures carry (Aquinas, Ockham, Maimonides and al-Razi all have "CE"). For consistency, either add "CE" here or drop it from the others.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Citations: the Rudolph 2013 Encyclopaedia Iranica entry is a web citation with no access date, while the other web citations generally include one.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The article is in excellent shape and these are all prose and MoS level. I would be glad to support on prose, structure and the Manual of Style once these are addressed. Metalicat (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Metalicat, thanks for your comments and all your earlier help during the peer review! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

No worries and thanks for the interesting read. Support. Metalicat (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Support from ThaesOfereode

I love to see these big pages brought to quality articles. Saving a spot for review later. Probably will do a prose review but if you'd rather I do a source review, just let me know. If I take too long to get started here, just ping me. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi ThaesOfereode and thanks for reviewing the article. A prose review would be great. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Gonna do the lede at the end in case things change going forward, but beginning review now:

• Boy, that hatnote situation is... out of hand. Any chance you want to create Agnostic (disambiguation)?

  Good idea, done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Definition

• It is a neutral position in which an individual neither affirms nor denies God's existence. – Sort of a passim note that I will only address once here, but the use of "God" here is maybe over-restricted? Perhaps something like the existence of dieties or the supernatural would be a more useful phrasing, since in its current condition it looks like an Abrahamic-, or at least monotheistic-, centric perspective.

  You are right in principle. However, the specific term God dominates reliable sources on the topic. My solution to the problem was to mention "existence of God or the divine" right in the first sentence to get the idea you express across while also following how reliable sources talk about the topic.

• remain open to both possibilities – Remain open or are simply unmoved by the arguments? It's easy to imagine an agnostic who is rather close-minded about the topic, which is addressed in the following sentence.

  I guess it depends on how we interpret "remain open to both possibilities". I don't think that it means the general character trait of open-mindedness. Instead, it just means that neither possibility is excluded because no decision has been made, even if the indecision is settled. If someone excludes the possibility that God exists (or does not exist), then I don't think we can call them agnostic. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Agnosticism is typically contrasted with belief and disbelief and is understood – Comma after "disbelief". Perhaps getting too into the weeds, but my gut tells me "disbelief" should maybe be "unbelief" for some reason.

  Done. Reliable sources use both disbelief and unbelief, but they use disbelief more often. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• the agnostic person – Minor, but you can just drop "person" altogether. Might be better to phrase as "an agnostic" but I'll leave that to you.

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Regarding footnote A:
  • Is there a reason "question" is not linked at first mention but at third?

    I moved the wikilink. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Forgive the forthcoming ignorance; I think I only took two or three basic philosophy classes in undergrad, but what is this footnote supposed to be telling me? Am I supposed to read this as Friedman argues that agnosticism can only be understood in the sense of "Is there a god?" whereas Archer understands it as approaching "There is (a/no) god" as an intellectual object to doubt? If I am understanding it correctly, what is the difference? Is the difference just on the starting position of the intellectual interrogation or is there substantive difference in these approaches? This might need more explanation in any event.

    According to one idea in philosophy of mind, mental states have two components, a content and an attitude towards the content. As I understand the disagreement, Friedman says that the content is a question (e.g. does God exist?) and the attitude is something like suspension of judgment, while Archer thinks that the content is a statement (e.g. God exists.) and the attitude is doubt. The sources don't say it as clearly, so take my interpretation with a grain of salt. I added a short explanation to better clarify their structural difference. The difference may matter because a statement has a truth-value and a question does not, which can create symmetries or asymmetries between agnosticism and theism/atheism. However, this may be too academic to delve further into. I added the footnote in response to another editor who implied that these different views should be mentioned. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

    Insofar as this is evidently notable to the question of defining agnosticism as a form of thought, what do you think about de-footnote-ifying it? I don't want to necessarily force you to do it (by demand or just to agree with me and get on with it), but I feel that footnotes should be terse (two sentences max) to explain something important but sort of ancillary to the main point. This footnote is long and seems pertinent to the definition of agnosticism, but feel free to tell me to kick rocks on this one if you feel strongly. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

    It's relevant to the definition but the point is probably too technical for the average reader and limited to a discussion between two individual theorists, while most of the other points in the definition section are more broadly discussed in the academic discourse. With articles on philosophical topics, there is often a fine line between presenting all points that experts are interested in and making articles accessible to the average reader. One way to move toward this elusive balance is to confine more specific technical points to footnotes so they are still in the article while making it less likely that reviewers focused on accessibility complain. I agree that having long footnotes is not ideal either, but I think it's the better alternative in this situation. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• Agnostics are often motivated by the idea that the available evidence is inconclusive – Should "evidence" link to evidence or maybe Evidence of God?

  It currently links to Evidence. Evidence of God is a redirect to Existence of God, which is also linked in the paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• This attitude goes beyond suspension of belief – Why not link Suspended judgement here instead of in the next section?

  I moved the link. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• the ancient Greek terms – For the language, the a is capitalized.

  Fixed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Soft recommend to link that negative alpha to Alpha privative instead of Wiktionary.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Types and Based on attitude

• Link doxastic?

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• evidence for and against is mixed and balances out – Probably "or" instead of "and" here, right? It's easy to imagine an agnostic who might view the evidence as overall mixed but maybe a little tilted in one way or the other.

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Probably want to link Epistemology at some point in here.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• is the only viable option – Soft recommend {{em}} templating on "only".

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Footnote D should probably just be a body sentence.

  I was considering that, but my impression is that leaving it in a footnote at this point is better since the distinction between temporary and permanent agnosticism is explained later in more detail. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Based on inquiry

• tried to gather evidence – Can probably tighten this to simply gathered evidence unless there's some distinction you're making.

  "gathered evidence" implies that there is evidence, which some agnostics deny. However, even if there is no evidence, you can still try to gather some, so we leave this option open. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• because they do not consider the issue important enough – You might link Apatheism in here somehow.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• However, it is controversial whether this attitude should be regarded as a genuine form of agnosticism. – This is a sentence that probably needs a footnote or some other kind of explanation. What else would it be?

  I added a short explanation. It is connected to the earlier discussion of the infant who is not agnostic, and to the later contrast between agnostics and innocents. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• Italics seem unpredictable a little passim, but as above, I will only touch on it here. I know WP:WAW prescribes certain words be italicized. It seems to me that maybe "grounded" and "ungrounded agnosticism" should maybe be italicized. Same with optimistic, etc.

  My understanding is that MOS:WORDSASWORDS applies when talking explicitly about terms. On this interpretation, the sentence "Ungrounded agnosticism is the view that..." needs no italics, whereas the sentence "The term ungrounded agnosticism refers to the view that..." would need italics. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but I would imagine pessimistic/permanent agnosticism would point to the impossibility of proving a negative? Maybe Russell's teapot is relevant here too.

  Both links would be relevant here, but they are more relevant later, where Burden of proof (philosophy) (in the section Arguments; this is where the disambiguation page Proving a negative links) and Russell's teapot (see footnote k) are explicitly discussed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• Footnote E is so long and so substantive I can't think of a reason it should not be included in the body of this article. In any event, link Metalinguistics or a more fitting link.

  It was initially a regular paragraph. I moved it to a footnote because I had the impression that it was not as essential as the other distinctions for regular readers, leaving it for the curious readers who like to go through footnotes. I can move it back to the regular text if you think otherwise. I added a link to Non-cognitivism instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Other

• Global agnosticism is rarely defended as a serious position in contemporary philosophy – Seems like maybe you should add a short sentence about why?

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• Footnote F can probably just be integrated into the paragraph it's already in.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Related views

• In its strongest form, radical skepticism is the view that knowledge is impossible. – Should this be more explicitly differentiated from the aforementioned "global agnosticism"? A footnote might be helpful in doing so.

  There are various sources on agnosticism and radical skepticism. Unfortunately, they do not explicitly mention "global agnosticism" as far as I'm aware, so a direct comparison may be original research. If you come across a direct comparison, I would be happy to include a footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Is the Problem of other minds the right link here or should it be Solipsism? Not sure either way, I just thought it was worth mentioning.

  I think both could be used here. See the next response. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• there is an external world outside of one's mind – Might be getting into WP:EGG territory, but Brain in a vat (or similar) here?

  I have the impression that Solipsism fits better, so I added the link here. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• By contrast, ignosticism, or igtheism, targets the concept rather than the existence of God. It holds that the concept is ill-defined and that talk about God is neither true nor false, for example, because it is meaningless. – Can this be explained further? I'm not sure this is being explained well; something ill-defined can still be true or false (e.g., blue may have several different hues and tones, and people may disagree as to which are within the category of blue; it may be unclear how to categorize aquamarine, but orange is not blue) and something ill-defined can still be meaningful (e.g., words in polysynthetic languages are notoriously long and there is debate as to whether their length is a result of their being words per se or the convention of writing them without spaces; regardless, "word" still has a meaning for analyzing the language).

  I clarified that this amounts to the concept being meaningless. This is different from a concept like blue, which is vague but has a meaning. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Arguments

• Link Lockean?

  Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Conversely, Clifford's principle maintains that belief without sufficient evidence is wrong. – Seems pertinent to specify "morally wrong" here.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Following this view, agnostics argue that God is beyond the scope of sensory experience [...] belief in God is analogous to belief in one's perceptions – Soft suggestion to link Perception to sensory experience. Alternatively, link sensory experience to something else.

  I moved the link. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Why is Deus absconditus in the "For" section? It seems to me that this has more of a theistic tilt. In either event, this topic should probably be made more explicit about its relationship to agnosticism. Right now it feels more definitional.

  I expanded the explanation. This view amounts to an agnostic theism: God is there but is hidden, so you are stuck with belief/faith since there is no empirical knowledge. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Moral arguments assert that a supreme moral authority and lawmaker is the most plausible account of the existence of morality – Soft suggestion to link Divine command theory somewhere here (maybe?).

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• such as dreams and visions of the divine – Link Vision (spirituality) somewhere in here.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Link Holy text.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• empirical confirmation or disconfirmation – Pretty funny given the context, but wrong link here.

  Good point Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Why does moral evil link to Problem of evil instead of Moral evil? Problem of evil may be better suited to argument from suffering as a whole.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Minor aside here: are we sure "Poidevin, Robin Le" is correct and it shouldn't be "Le Poidevin, Robin"?

  I think you are right, this is how other sources cite him. Fixed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• It holds that the potential benefits of being right, such as an eternal blissful life in heaven, outweigh the finite costs of erroneous belief, making belief a wager worth taking. – "Infinite" not "finite" here, right? Or is this saying that the "erroneous belief" is "believing in God when there is none" (which would be finite)? Either way, probably needs to be more clear.

  The idea is that the potential reward is infinite while the possible risk is finite, like a bet where you have to risk 10 bucks for the chance to win an infinite amount of money. I reformulated the passage, I hope it is clearer now. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Lifestyles and implications

• Presumably the lifestyle aspect is an implication of agnosticism, no? Seems we can WP:POSA this into just "Implications".

  Strictly speaking, you are probably correct that lifestyles could be subsumed under implications. However, the term "implications" alone is rather abstract and fits better for the 2nd part of the section, where psychological and sociological effects are discussed. I think keeping the term "Lifestyles" helps ensure that the title is more descriptive and concrete. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• For example, an agnostic may engage in religion on a practical level while suspending judgment on a theoretical level. – What does "practical" mean here? Like in a Pascal's wager type of way or some other meaning? Also, perhaps "in a practical sense" and "in a theoretical sense" over "on a X level"? I'm not sure what "level" is supposed to indicate here. My first thought was order or some kind of metaphor for progression.

  In this context, "practical" is about what people do while "theoretical" is about what people believe. I hope the following sentence clarifies this. I implemented your reformulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• such as certain strands of Buddhism and Taoism – I think there's a better way to phrase this because it sounds like there are certain strands of Buddhism that do have a personal god.

  That's not entirely wrong: Buddhists usually don't believe in a single creator god, but there are some strands that worship personal deities, such as devotional practices in Tibetan Buddhism. However, our claim here is a little bit weaker: if your belief system does not have a central doctrine regarding God one way or the other, then it may just be fine with suspending judgment about the matter. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• paralyze decision-making and result in moral decay – Soft suggestions to link Executive dysfunction (or similar) and Moral decay

  I add Moral decay. Executive dysfunction is possibly too strong. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• group atheists and agnostics into a single category – Link Irreligion somewhere here or do you mean something else?

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

History

• Given that "peace of mind" is probably more aligned with Inner peace (see lede there), you might use the term ataraxia and briefly gloss it instead or use one of the more specific translations found there (e.g., imperturbability).

  I changed it to "a form of equanimity" to avoid introducing a new technical term that is not essential for the rest of the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• This "Modern and contemporary" section has a lot of double tapping from earlier in the article. Do we really need to relitigate Pascal's wager or Clifford's principle?

  I think we need to list them here for the sake of completeness. They only get brief mentions to contextualize them historically, while the main explanations are found in the earlier sections. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• William Kingdon Clifford and William James disagreed about whether belief without sufficient evidence is always wrong. – Did they debate with each other or were they just on opposite sides of a dichotomy? Might rephrase if the latter.

  William James explicitly responded to Clifford. I don't think that our term "disagree" implies a direct debate. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• We might briefly say how Ingersoll popularized the term. We might also mention his rather prominent nickname related to the topic.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Influenced by scientific naturalism, John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), George Eliot (1819–1880), and Leslie Stephen (1832–1904) challenged orthodox Christian doctrine and adopted an agnostic outlook instead. – I would either explain how they challenged the doctrine or just remove this entirely. It feels out of place and kind of random/indiscriminate otherwise.

  I turned the sentence into a footnote instead and reformulated it to better contextualize it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Can we gloss what is meant by "new agnosticism"?

  Unfortunately, this is a bit of a challenge since the authors are not in full agreement about what the term means except for the fact that it can exist alongside religious faith and practice. We could explain what each one means, but I don't think that this is important enough to merit a lengthy discussion. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Soft recommend to translate ietsism as 'somethingism' or otherwise explain the "iets". Not a big deal either way.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

More to come, but I didn't want this candidacy to get archived in this state. ThaesOfereode (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Finding reviewers for this type of article can unfortunately be challenging, so the danger of being archived is often looming. Luckily, there is still at least some time left for the moment. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I can imagine. Happy to do my part to help get this already-excellent article to FA. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Phlsph7: I can't think of any meaningful reason to keep this from FA. Congratulations on an excellent article and thank you for contributing so comprehensively to such a high-traffic and vital article. I look forward to this TFA. More than happy to support. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the indepth review and all the helpful suggestions! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments from ZooBlazer

• This view argues that humans are unable to acquire this kind of information -- "This view" is slightly ambiguous. The preceding sentences describe psychological agnosticism before contrasting it with epistemological agnosticism. Maybe clarify the subject (example: "Epistemological agnosticism argues that...")

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• The transition to the second paragraph in "Based on inquiry" (Optimistic, pessimistic, and hesitant agnosticism agree) feels slightly abrupt after discussing grounded vs. ungrounded agnosticism. Maybe add a short transitional clause to introduce this set of distinctions based on future prospects to help with flow.

  Good idea. Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• As a form of local or partial agnosticism, it is limited to a specific domain: one can be agnostic about God without being agnostic about extraterrestrial life... -- "It" acts as a dangling pronoun so I would suggest rephrasing to something like: "Local or partial agnosticism is limited to a specific domain: for example, one can be...")

  I used a different formulation instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• According to one framework, there are four mutually exclusive attitudes -- I think it would be helpful to attribute this specific framework directly in the text ("According to a framework proposed by philosopher Graham Oppy...")

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• The image caption for David Hume (David Hume argued that knowledge of a supernatural god is impossible since all knowledge of the world is limited to sensory experience) is pretty long for a caption and mostly repeats the body text. Maybe condense it to something like: "David Hume, who argued that knowledge of God is impossible beyond sensory experience."

  I implemented a slight variation. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• In this sense, agnostics differ from atheists on a theoretical level but align on a practical level: they act as if God does not exist, eschewing religious traditions and faith-based rituals -- This phrasing is a bit absolute, especially since the next paragraph discusses religious agnostics. I'd suggest softening it a bit (example: "many act as if...")

  I change the expression to "they may act as if...". Phlsph7 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• The "Lifestyles and implications" section uses somewhat vague attributions like Researchers discuss... and Surveys further indicate.... Are there parts of the section that you can specify the types of researchers (example: sociologists, psychologists of religion) or name the major surveys?

  I changed the introductory clause. Generally speaking, there are typically many fields and surveys that the article summarizes, so vague attributions can be helpful to avoid clumsy and incomplete lists that may not be particularly helpful to a reader who wants to get the general picture. More concrete attributions are made where the text talks about about specific surveys or estimates, as in the last paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Per your request I have had a look at the article. This is far from my expertise so if any of my comments are not helpful, then feel free to ignore them. -- ZooBlazer 18:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@ZooBlazer: Thanks for taking a look at the article and for the helpful comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks good. Happy to support. -- ZooBlazer 17:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Source and image review

I am bothered by commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते.jpg which is referenced by File:Avatars of Vishnu.jpg - @Ellin Beltz and Jameslwoodward: I know it's been 10 years but do they apply here? What's the UK copyright status of File:Clifford William Kingdon (cropped portrait).jpg? I believe I mentioned in previous FACses that Google Books page links don't work to display the same page numbers to everyone. The sources seem reliable and consistently formatted, but I must caution that I don't know many of them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for another source and image review! I added a UK tag for https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Clifford_William_Kingdon_(cropped_portrait).jpg . Regarding https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Avatars_of_Vishnu.jpg , I'm not sure what the relation to the old deletion request is. The problem back then was apparently that various images were falsely claimed as own work as suggested by the original deletion request. This is not the case for this image, which is sourced to Flickr. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: the two editors you pinged haven't been active in a while on the English Wikipedia, so they may not respond soon. If there is a concrete problem with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Avatars_of_Vishnu.jpg , then I can look for an alternative. However, the image fits well into the article, so I don't want to remove it just because of a suspicion. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Asked Jameslwoodward on their Commons talk page in case they have input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I, too, do not understand the connection between the ten year old deletion -- which was because the image is personal art, out of scope -- and the current discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus, thank you for the Commons TP note, but note that pings here (and anywhere) will appear whenever a user logs in on any WP project, so your first ping above appeared in my attention list. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I guess this answers then i.e the current image isn't the same as the old one. (for reference, pings aren't always entirely reliable, hence I supplement them with talk page notices at times) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! I removed the reference to the deleted image since it's not clear that there is a relation. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Query

@FAC coordinators: May I start another nomination? This one has three supports, a source and image review, and is over 1 month old. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

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