Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2025

RoySmith

I already reviewed this at PR, so I'll just add something interesting I noticed. Aculeata says A large part of the clade is parasitic, and going one more step up the tree, Hymenoptera also says Many of the species are parasitic. Ant, however, makes no such statement. It would be interesting to explore why parasitism is (apparently) so common in Aculeata and Hymenoptera but not generally in Formicidae. RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith: That's actually very interesting, from a skim of what I can access right now, it looks like the more primitive the taxa the more common parasitism is, and I suppose that may have something to do with it. I'll take a deeper look soon and see if I can find more reliable stuff on that that can be included in the article. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 01:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

GGOTCC

As the GA reviewer, I helped Sophisticatedevening mainly with prose and ease of understanding. My main points ('concerns' is not the correct word) mainly regards clerity and comprehension. GGOTCC 02:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi GGOTCC, just checking that this should be taken as support for promoting the article to featured status? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

It is now! GGOTCC 22:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Support from Toadspike

I'll do a prose review. I am not a bug person, so I hope my perspective reflects the knowledge of the average reader.

• "which causes some to remain undetected inside a colony for the majority of their lifespans" – this is a little awkward. It implies that most parasitic ants do not go undetected their whole life, which I would think is much more notable than the fact that some do.
  • Rephrased
• The summary of social parasitic syndrome in the lead is unsatisfying. For one, it doesn't make clear whether this is a species-wide thing (not clear from reading the main section either) or a change specific to individual ants. I would also suggest condensing "a series of changes to their anatomy during their evolution towards exploitative behaviors" to something like "changes to their anatomy adapted for parasitism", which would be shorter and more to-the-point.
  • Added the genera it was observed in in the main+lead
• "queens, workers and drones" is missing a serial comma; my personal preference aside, you seem to use one elsewhere (", and M. wettereri."), so the article should be internally consistent.
• Is this "separate pseudo-caste of mutated worker ants that exhibit queen-like phenotypes", which has ovaries, able to lay eggs? My rudimentary ant knowledge tells me that most ants are incapable of laying eggs.
  • Removed for consistency
• "contain a supergene" – not sure if this is genetically correct. I believe most/all ants have this supergene, but that it is mutated in these ants. Adding the word "mutated" should fix this.
  • Done
• "Rather than become" – I believe "Rather than becoming" is more grammatical here.
  • Done
• Shame that Cuticular hydrocarbon is a redirect, this topic seems to be notable. In the meantime you could link "cuticular" to Arthropod exoskeleton or Cuticle.
  • Done
• "The parasite uses its mandible to attach itself to a host ant" – does the host ant not care that it is being grabbed like this? Is it harmed or killed in the process? Does it fight back?
  • Clarified, it does (try) to fight back
• "can make the parasite indistinguishable from host workers" – is it necessary to specify "to other ants" here? I assume a human with a microscope could still distinguish them, since we usually don't rely on ant pheromones. But perhaps this is too nitpicky and not worth specifying.
• I believe "tongue–like" should be using a hyphen instead of an en dash.
  • Done
• "glossae" currently links to tongue – is this intended? Are the structures actually related (homologous)? If not, I would remove the link.
  • Removed
• The helpful parenthetical simplifications are conspicuously absent from the "Phylogeny" section. Though not required, terms that could use one if you are so inclined are "dulotic", "inquiline", "formicoid", and maybe "monophyletic".
  • Added
• "Temporary social parasitism...marked by the parasites losing the ability to form their own colonies" – this doesn't sound temporary to me. I would tack on something like "instead relying on taking over existing colonies of other species" to the end of this sentence to clarify what makes this "temporary".
  • Fixed
• The sentence "Some ants also utilize slave raids to transport host eggs back to their own colony to raise as their own." is missing a citation. I suppose it's a summary of the following-subsection, though, so I'm not sure one is needed.
  • Repeated citation
• "transport their offspring back" – The article on slave-making ants specifies "larvae and pupae", could you do the same here? "offspring" could theoretically include adult workers, but the other article says enslaving adults is rare and this article doesn't mention it at all (might be worth adding). Later it says "offspring in various stages of growth", which is a little vague.
  • Done
• "send out scouts to search for taxonomically similar species nearby in order to infiltrate the colony with minimal conflict from host workers" – I believe the part after "in order to" refers solely to "taxonomically similar", but doesn't refer to the behavior or the scouts, who I don't think infiltrate the colony while scouting. Later in this paragraph we also have "and are often closely related taxonomically to their hosts"; not sure if this repetition is needed. I suggest removing the first mention of taxonomical similarity.
  • Done
• "This process usually takes around 1 year for..." – a little awkward. I suggest replacing "This process" with "It" and writing "1" as the word "one" (MOS:NUMERAL).
  • Fixed
• "These ants target..." – This sentence contains many "they" and "their" and "them", which could be ambiguous. Suggest replacing these vague terms with specific nouns.
  • Fixed
• "hydrocarbon profile of their hosts" – I'd use the specific term from earlier, "cuticular hydrocarbon profile".
  • Replaced
• "alkaloid-derived venom" – The sources calls them alkaloids outright. Remove "-derived".
  • Done
• "used to pacify the host colony" sounds like a euphemism. What do they do? Is this venom deadly or merely uncomfortable? Do they harm or kill any workers?
  • Changed to "sedates"
• You casually drop "consume the host's food and offspring" without elaborating; I don't think any of the other ants we've encountered thus far eat offspring. Is this notable enough that it should be discussed further?
  • I personally don't see anything worth elaborating on too much further, most of the other types do the same this was just the first occurence
• "The inquiline parasite's brood are almost always capable of reproduction" – what does this mean? Does this mean that all of the offspring are able to reproduce, or that they can survive on fewer resources than the host offspring and thus more likely to reproduce? Or something else?
  • Clarified
• You can re-link Emery's rule in the Inquiline ants section; since this is one top-level section header away from the first link, it's a valid WP:DUPLINK.
  • Done
• "The following of Emery's rule" --> "Following Emery's rule", simpler.
  • Done
• "altered metabolism and significantly shrunken bodies" – another missing serial comma. Again, it's okay if you don't want to use them, but please be consistent.
  • Removed for consistency
• "The supergene is inherited in a single generation"...what does this mean?
  • Removed
• "with the exception of wings" – please specify, for the non-ant people, that what is meant here is that the queens have wings and the workers do not. Maybe adding the word "having" before "wings" would work?
  • Done
• "the ants are then considered obligate parasites as they are no longer able to independently survive without exploiting a host colony" --> "the ants are no longer able to independently survive without exploiting a host colony, making them obligate parasites". Clearer causality, more concise.
  • Done
• "virgin potential queens" – are these two adjectives not redundant?
  • Removed "virgin"
• "The resources and care that are usually diverted towards a host colony's own brood are used for the parasite's offspring" – I think "diverted towards" is poor word choice here. Perhaps replace with "devoted to". You can replace "used for" later on with "diverted towards" if you like.
  • Replaced with "devoted"
• "less healthy and fit" – do these not mean the same thing? Or does "fit" only mean in the evolutionary sense? Wait, even if it does, the workers can't reproduce...
  • Removed fit
• "dufour", as a person's name, should be capitalized: Dufour. I don't know whether the "'s" is necessary, but the article is titled Dufour's gland.
  • Done
• "This toxin can induce infighting among the host colony" – How?! This is crazy!
  • I know right!?!
• "in an attempt for" is a little awkward. "Attempt" is usually followed by "to", but that doesn't fit here. Would suggest replacing the whole phrase with "allowing".
  • Done
• "infected host colony" – I think this is the first time "infected" has been used in this article to mean "being parasitized". I'd reword to avoid it.
  • Reworded
• "some parasites residing inside" – inside what? ("the host colony")
  • Clarified
• "violent physical means" --> "violence"
  • Done
• "helped map out" – any reason this doesn't just say "have mapped out"? I would also follow "pairs" with a colon instead of a period.
  • Done

Generally a solid article, good work!

@Toadspike: Thank you so much for the very thorough review! I believe I have addressed your concerns above. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 14:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sophisticatedevening Thank you for the speedy response. Everything looks good, except that I think you may have missed the question about laying eggs by misplacing your reply to the serial comma comment. (I am also sad that you have decided against serial commas in general.)

On "used to sedate the host colony" – I've checked the source and they say "use alkaloids produced in their venom glands to subdue their hosts and gain access to their resources", which doesn't really answer my question, but that means you can't be expected to answer it either. I'm going to backtrack here and say that "pacify" was a better term, since "sedate" has a specific medical meaning that may not apply here. Sorry.

And for the coords, I am now ready to support this nomination. Toadspike [Talk] 15:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Support from ImaginesTigers

Very interesting nom. I'll give some thoughts on sources and prose.

• Inconsistent language field – values differ per template (eg., "English" vs "en" vs "en-us") or differ in whether they use the field (eg.,Fischer Friedman et al 2020 uses it but Helanterä 2021 doesn't). I'd recommend standardising those. Everything else looks good
  • Fixed to just "en"
• Content looks really good
• I think it'd be worth including some of the material from Methods in the lead? It's a really interesting part of the article and IMO is a bit underrepresented right now
  • Included a bit more, describing from the slaver ants section
• If I do have critical feedback, it's on the "Social parasitic syndrome" section

• I had to re-read this sentence several times: Social parasitic syndrome is a series of changes that can occur in parasitic ant species during their evolution towards exploitative behaviors. It makes it sound like this happens at the same rate as evolution (eg., hundreds of thousands/millions of years), which might be true, but feels odd.
  • Switched to "transformation", more of a generational thing.
• To explain from my laymen's perspective: If the species is already exploitative (ie., its definition includes "parasitic ant species"), how are they moving towards exploitative behaviours?
  • So this is from the perspective of trying to explain how they got to where they are if that makes sense, so like they are parasitic now and this is how they became so. A little unsure how to clarify that in the text.
• I'm just not understanding this section very well, especially as it is standalone. Would this possibly be better situated under "Species and chacteristics", given that it applies to lots of them?
  • Moved it up to that section

• No feedback, but holy god on Earth: Parasitic queens do not productively contribute any resources or support to the host colony, and sometimes remove the wings of virgin potential queens

Really strong nomination – looking forward to your responses. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: Thank you so much for the review! I believe the concerns above have now been addressed. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:29, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I went light on my prose review because of Toadspike's extensive review – given the resolution of mine and Toadspike's, I'll offer my support.

Note for the coords: I'm happy to be pinged for spot checks if they're needed. Cheers — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes please IT, I would be grateful if you could do a source to text fidelity check and a plagiarism check. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

No problem Gog - give me till Friday at the latest. Away from my device at the minute and might need a day to recover. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Image review - pass

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

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lasius_umbratus_(Formicidae),_Kampina,_the_Netherlands.jpg

  from https://waarneming.nl/photos/11952807/ , CC BY 3.0

  I'm a little confused since our image page says CC BY 3.0, whereas the source page says CC-BY-NC-ND, which would not be compatible with wiki commons. However, the image has a tag stating explicitly that the license was reviewed and confirmed, so maybe the source website changed the license in the meantime. Do you know something about this?

  I actually have no idea, so I'll replace that with File:Rossomyrmex proformicarum casent0178514 profile 1.jpg for now. -- SE

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Polyergus_lucidus_with_host_Formica_archboldi.jpg

  from http://www.insectscience.org/7.42/i1536-2442-2007-42.pdf , CC BY 2.5

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anergates_atratulus_casent0010835_profile_1.jpg

  from https://www.antweb.org/bigPicture.do?name=casent0010835&number=1&shot=p , CC BY-SA 3.0

  I think the license should be changed to CC BY 4.0 since this is what the source website says.

  Swapped it for 4.0 -- SE

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Polyergus_lucidus_Formica_incerta_Wiki.jpg

  own work, CC BY-SA 3.0

The images are placed in appropriate locations in the article. All images have captions and alt texts. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Phlsph7: Thanks for the image review! I've fixed the two issues listed now. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 15:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that takes care of the remaining concerns. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Graham Beards

In these two sentences the expression "outside of" is not grammatically correct, it should be just "outside" because it is a preposition.

• "The venom can be detected by other ants outside of the host colony, so host ants often allow the parasites to reside inside of the nest in order to deter nearby hostile ant colonies despite their negative effects."
• "These ants have not been identified outside of the US state of Texas, and are the least common type of parasitic ant."
• Also, "in order to" is redundant. It should be just "to". There are six occurrences of this.

-Graham Beards (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: Thank you for catching those! I've now corrected the issues listed. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 13:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Happy to Support Graham Beards (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested source commentary

Not many refs so I'll just play this by ear. I've provided thoughts below and a space for you to reply.

• Article: Of the more than 12,000 species of ants, around 230 are considered parasites.

• Source: There are only about 230 known parasitic species of ants among the 12,500 or so described ant species.
• Verified and no ST issues.

• Article: Typical ant colonies have at least three castes: queens, workers and drones (males).

• Content is distributed across source. It verifies that there are 3 castes. Minor quibble that the source says these are typical, whereas the source says In some colonies, there may also be a fourth caste.
• Comment: What makes Arrow Exterminators Inc a reliable source? Can we get a source of higher quality?
• Nom reply: Replaced with better one.

• Article: The pheromones of parasitic ants are also altered to reflect those of the host species, usually through a process known as rubbing.

• Yg I don't think the source verifies "usually", is a minor nitpick here. Can you help me out with this one? Is there another way this happens that I'm missing?
• Nom reply: Removed "usually", unable to find another one.

• Article: Slaver ants are a type of parasite that enter a host colony and transport their larvae and pupae back to their own colony to raise them as their own

• I don't think the source verifies larvae, only pupae.
• verified, thanks Toadspike

• Article: [Parasitism] occurred around the same time the ants developed obligate colony founding, and was followed by the development of dulotic social parasitism.

• I'm having a hard time verifying this. All the relevant passages seem to be about Formica more specifically. Could you provide some quotes for me here? Since page numbers are used for other citations, could we use the page numbers of the downloadable PDF that numbers them 1–10?
• Nom reply: Doesn't look like it specifically says it applies outside of Formica (which is a parasitic ant), and it feels weird to adjust the text to just Formica so I've just removed that bit altogether.

• Article: Dulotic parasitism (parasitism slaver ants utilize) involves ants raiding nearby host colonies to capture the host brood and have them contribute to the parasitic colony once they hatch

• Non-source comment – does the paranthesis here make sense? Isn't it like writing "Prose writing (the style of writing prose writers use)"?
• Verified and no ST issues

• Article: Entomologists disagree on the exact origins of specific parasites, but do observe that many parasitic ants are closely related to the species they parasitize, following Emery's rule.

• Source says The evolutionary origins of social parasitism have been debated since Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (24). Entomologists have long noticed that ant social parasites and their hosts are close relatives (15, 16, 25–29), an observation subsequently referred to as “Emery’s rule” (30).
• Verified with no ST issues – I don't think it's perfect. I don't think Darwin is generally considered an entomologist, but I can accept that the subsequent debate likely refers to entomologists.

• Article: Arms races between social parasites and their hosts: geographic patterns of manipulation and resistance.

• Verified with no ST issues.

• Article: Parasitism in ants likely first arose 16 million years ago in the form of temporary social parasites.

• Source says According to the new Formica ant timeline, temporary social parasites share a common ant ancestor that lived roughly 16 million years ago.
• Our article feels much more declarative about the origin of ant parasitism in the source does here, whichs seems to be talking only about their ant ancestor from that period. The next source used seems to contradict this. As I understand it, Formica is the predatory group, and Iberoformica are their victims. Not understanding how the above can be true and this: Formica and Iberoformica split from their sister genus Polyergus around 33 Ma ago (95% highest posterior density [HPD]: 27 to 39 Ma) and Formica diverged from a common ancestor with its sister lineage Iberoformica subrufa ∼30 Ma ago (95% HPD: 24 to 35 Ma). Open to discussing.
• Nom reply: I've adjusted the text to say "around" which is less definitive; the source for that is the more recent of the two so I'm more inclined to take this one, and the one after you were referring to was also removed (see above).

That's all for now. — ImaginesTigers 09:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers "I don't think the source verifies larvae" – This is my fault. I mentioned it in my comments, as larvae are mentioned on the article on Slave-making ants. I have checked the source from that article, which seems to verify the information, and added it here (Ruano, now ref 23). Should be fixed now. Toadspike [Talk] 10:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: Thank you so much for the source review, I've replied above. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 14:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I originally had another set all formatted out but it was clear pretty quickly I'd caught any oddities in the first sweep. Gog, I'm happy to sign off from a sourcing POV. — ImaginesTigers 14:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks ImaginesTigers, that's great. In passing, it helps if reviewers - per the FAC instructions - avoid using graphics, like ticks. They have a seriously detrimental effect on the system that holds the main FAC page together, and have even been known to lock it solid. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

My bad. I knew this and forgot – thank you for the reminder — ImaginesTigers 19:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• "exploits the social structure of another ant species to for its own survival and reproduction." Is "to" a typo?
  • Yes, corrected.
• "as temporary social parasites." What does this mean?
  • Elaborated.
• "Parasites usually induce harmful effects on the target colony". "induce" has several meanings - it may be less ambiguous to use 'cause'. And "on" seems odd - maybe 'to'?
  • Changed to cause and switched to "to".
• "Depending on the severity and quantity of parasites". One cannot have 'a severity of parasites'.
  • Removed.
• "can inhibit the colony's growth and development. Depending on the severity and quantity of parasites, the colony can experience extreme damage, sometimes to the point of colony collapse". This seems to say much the same thing three times. "inhibit the colony's growth and development ... experience extreme damage ... to the point of colony collapse".
  • Removed the second sentence.
• "Parasites evolve their anatomy to reflect". No they don't. You mean something like ' In some cases the anatomy of parasitic ants has been observed/hypothesised/whatever to evolve to reflect ...'
  • Corrected.
• "Parasites evolve their anatomy". All parasites? Because that is what this claims.
  • Changed to "some".
• Do the sources use "targeted species" rather than 'target species'?
  • Looks like "target".

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thank you so much for catching those, they have now been fixed. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 20:46, 30 July 2025 (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. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Support from RoySmith

• File:The Splendid Naval Triumph on the Mississippi, April 24th, 1862- Destruction of the Rebel Gunboats, Rams, and Iron Clad Batteries by the Union Fleet under Flag Officer Farragut MET DP831355.jpg should be included in the article.
  • This has been added. Hog Farm _Talk 18:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
• There's lots of other PD images at https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-v/varuna.htm. Presumably some of them would be useful to add.
  • After the introduction of the image above, I don't believe there is functionally room for any additional images; there's now the infobox image of Varuna, the image of Varuna being rammed, the Currier & Ives print of the naval battle, and the map of movements during the battle (which was added as the result of a request for a map during the MILHIST A-Class review). Hog Farm _Talk 18:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
• This seems to be lacking a lot of basic details of her construction. Was the hull wood, iron, or steel? All you tell us about the engine is that it was steam. How many horsepower? Simple or compound expansion? Who manufactured the engine, the boilers, the propeller? How many blades? What fuel did it burn? How many crew/officers? Top speed? Draft?
  • Crew size is already mentioned in the article. The sources provide a measurement in depth of hold rather than draft, as would be standard for a merchant ship of the time, which is what Varuna was intended to be. I have not found any details about the engines in reliable sources; the US Navy simply didn't keep that sort of records for the early war "churn-and-burn" type ships that it acquired. My impression based on the sinking accounts is that it had a wooden hull; I will look for confirmation of that. I'll take a look to see if I can find anything specific for fuel, although ships of the time would often burn anything flammable that could be chucked into the furnaces (such as the pork mentioned in the article). Hog Farm _Talk 17:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Note that https://connecticuthistory.org/connecticuts-naval-contributions-to-the-civil-war/ talks about high speed and shallow draft as being significant factors in the battle, so these seem like important things to mention.
    • I'm not seeing where that source mentions anything about the draft of Varuna? Rather the reference to draft appears to be another ship, in 1864, in North Carolina? In addition, that source contains enough errors in its brief description of Vaurna in the battle that it should be utterly ignored - "Varuna is credited with sinking three Confederate ships" is not a claim found in any of the high-quality print work on the battle, and "During this close-quartered fight she was surrounded by Confederate vessels, and her bow-mounted parrot rifle was canted awkwardly downward so she could actually fire through her own bow at one of her antagonists. " is also clearly wrong - it was the Governor Moore which fired through its own bow, not Varuna. Hog Farm _Talk 17:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

    Oh, my bad on the speed and draft. I missed that they changed to talking about the Thames New London. RoySmith (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• Varuna as either a sloop or a corvette the link to sloop is to the wrong article; that's a modern type of sailboat. Screw sloop is the right article (which you do link to later on, but link on first use).
  • Good catch; I've fixed the ink. Hog Farm _Talk 17:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
• https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/john-greene indicates the Varuna was rammed by the Morgan, not the Governor Moore. Are there additional sources to corroborate which of these is correct?
  • This is clearly in error and can be ignored. The high-quality print sources are unanimous in stating that Governor Moore was the ship that did the primary ramming of Varuna. Silverstone lists two Confederate ships named Morgan - the CSS Morgan, which spent its entire CS career in Mobile Bay in Alabama, and then a captured US revenue cutter, of which the grand total of information that is still known appears to be that it was outfitted with 3 guns by the Confederates and that it was on the lower Mississippi in November 1861. Chatelain does not mention either Morgan in his index; the only reference to either Morgan in Hearn in a passing mention to the revenue cutter in a context discussing material long before the battle, and I've seen no evidence that there is any record of either Morgan being present at the battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip. Additionally, neither Hearn nor Bielski's Emerging Civil War book about the fall of New Orleans list a Morgan among the Confederate ships. Hog Farm _Talk 16:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  This is interesting. Apparently the mis-attribution to the Morgan comes from a Medal of Honor citation awarded to one of the Varuna crew:

  • "Civil War Veteran Buried in Spokane". Newspapers.com. November 11, 2010. Retrieved July 4, 2025.
  • "Monument Honors War Hero". Newspapers.com. June 11, 2015. Retrieved July 4, 2025.

  RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  Actually, another citation claiming it was the Morgan: "Bourne Identity Finally Revealed". Newspapers.com. October 9, 2009. Retrieved July 4, 2025. RoySmith (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  It looks like most of the Medal of Honor citations for Varuna's crew were written on the assumption that the Confederate ship was the Morgan. As this is clearly incorrect, I see no reason to mention this in the article and perpetuate a 19th-century error. Hog Farm _Talk 23:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  I have a guess as to what was going on here, although it's not provable - the Governor Moore was known as the Charles Morgan as a civilian vessel. (Silverstone, p. 229) There is probably either some confusion with the naming here or it's possible the North was referring to the vessel by a civilian name intentionally. Hog Farm _Talk 23:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• https://seewesterly.com/the-dauntless-varuna/ says the name of the shipyard was Charles Mallory & Sons, which seems to be backed up by http://mobius.mysticseaport.org/detail.php?module=objects&type=related&kv=176931
  • Silverstone's appendix refers to it as the Charles H. Mallory yard, which I've gone with for now. I suspect the two are different names for the same thing. Hog Farm _Talk 17:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
• According to https://liboatingworld.com/the-dauntless-veruna/ (likely not a WP:RS, but at least a place to start researching) says the purchase price was $127,460. It also talks about pre-battle modifications ("lightening them by stripping them of their upper rigging..."). That should be tracked down to a RS and included if it turns out to be verifiable.
  • I found the primary source where the $127,460 figure is coming from and have added this. The better sources mainly focus on the pre-battle aspect of Farragut having chains draped around the hulls of the ships, of which I've added a mention. Hog Farm _Talk 17:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
• I think it's worth a short explanation that "rifle" is a technical term referring to anything with a rifled barrel. Most modern readers with no technical knowledge of guns will assume you're talking about hand-held gun.
  • I'll figure out where my book about Civil War cannon is later this afternoon and try to throw together a footnote for this. Hog Farm _Talk 18:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
    • I've thrown in a footnote describing the Parrott rifle - basically cheap & plentiful with some drawbacks. Hog Farm _Talk 21:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
• What is the disposition of the ship now? Was the wreck ever raised? Otherwise cleared as a hazard to navigation?
  • @RoySmith: - Do you think National Underwater and Marine Agency would be a usable source? If so, this has some information that could be added. It's associated with the Cussler expedition that had the gradiometer hit. Hog Farm _Talk 17:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  I had found the numa.net page and hadn't made up my mind about it being an RS or not. I also found https://www.modelshipbuilder.com/publications/msbj/msbj_2009-06.pdf, which also seems to fall into that maybe-RS-maybe-not bucket.

  Along the way, I found a few more sources that look interesting and mention the Varuna, but may not have anything new to say beyond what you've found already:

  • https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA279033.pdf
  • https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA145600.pdf
  • https://data.dnr.la.gov/lcp/FINALPlaqCZMPUApproved.pdf

  RoySmith (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  The first of these is extremely interesting but from a quick skim the identified magnetic anomalies were likely those of CSS Defiance and CSS Louisiana. The second only mentions Varuna once in the two pages it devotes to the Federal operations to capture New Orleans, of which a part of that coverage is devoted to the Battle of the Head of Passes. The third mentions Varuna only in a list of Civil War shipwrecks in the area. While it associates Varuna with site # 16 PL 93 there is no other reference to 16 PL 93 in that document, and a quick google search for "16 pl 93" + "varuna" only brings up that Louisiana DNR document. Hog Farm _Talk 21:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• Apparently, a children's book features the Varuna: Burgan, Michael; Rodríguez, Pedro (October 29, 2024). "Hot iron : the adventures of a Civil War powder boy". WorldCat.org. Retrieved July 4, 2025.

• And a song about her: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011708644&seq=170&q1=varuna

The prose is well written, and I can't hold it against you that the records from that era are fragmentary and/or faulty, so I'll toss my hat into the support camp. RoySmith (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

FM

• Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• I see a bunch of duplinks in close succession. Can be highlighted with the usual script.
  • Removed Hog Farm _Talk 19:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

• Give dates in image captions?
  • I've done what I can here - for the map and the ramming image, it's not entirely clear when in the 1880s it was published. They're from an article in a magazine series. Hog Farm _Talk 19:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

• Why no caption for the map? Perhaps it may seem obvious what it is, but it also seems so stylised and unusual that I think some context would be helpful.
  • An oversight - I've added one. Hog Farm _Talk 19:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

• Never seen the term "mothballed", link Reserve fleet, as the disambig page seems to point there?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
• "The Union ship could be identified by the color of light she showed on her masthead, as Confederate vessels carried a different color of light." Which colors were these?
  • I've clarified this. Hog Farm _Talk 02:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
• "The gunboat CSS Jackson briefly fired into the melee" Which side was it on?
  • I've added on a gloss to the first mention of CSS that those are Confederate ships - I think with that stated the prefixes should be enough to identify sides. Hog Farm _Talk 02:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
• "Another gunboat then arrived and rammed Varuna." While you go into the issue in the footnote, perhaps add "of uncertain identity" to the article body, as I was left wondering why it wasn't named until I reached the footnotes...
  • Well - I'm not sure how appropriate that would be. Nobody really says that it's uncertain who rammed Varuna the final time - some sources just outright state Breckinridge and some outright state Stonewall Jackson. So calling it uncertain in wikivoice is a slight OR issue. Hog Farm _Talk 02:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Of debated identity then? Either way, no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Support Comments from Parsecboy

Always good to see another ship at FAC! I reviewed this article at MILHIST earlier this year, but have these additional comments:

• "was tasked with blockading..." and then "was tasked with the capture..." - I know some object to the "tasked with" construction, though it doesn't bother me. But we do probably want to vary the wording.
  • I've reworded a couple sentences towards the beginning of the lead and have written away one of these. Hog Farm _Talk 01:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
• "When the American Civil War broke out in April 1861, the Union adopted the Anaconda Plan. This involved blockading the Confederate coastline and taking control of the Mississippi River." - do we want to spell out that the point of the plan was to cut off Confederate trade with neutral countries (and thereby deprive it of arms and other war-related materiel)?
  • I've briefly expanded upon this, as well as some rewording to reflect that the Anaconda Plan was never officially adopted. Hog Farm _Talk 01:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
• "The Union found itself needing a number of new ships" - I think it would be better for the readers if we could give them some scale of the acquisitions needed. We say the Navy had 42 operational ships - is that a lot? Not quite enough? Or woefully inadequate?
  • I've added that by the end of the war in 1865, the Union had nearly 700 ships. Hog Farm _Talk 01:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
    • That works, though I wonder if it might be better as a note? I'm not sure it needs to be in the main text. Up to you though. Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
• Do we care that 8" is technically 20.3 cm? I know some people get nitpicky about rounding conversions
  • I'm one of those people. Getting the number of significant digits right was drilled into me in college physics class, where if you reported an answer with more digits than the inputs justified, you got it marked wrong. That being said, this isn't a physics test. For some things, there are conversions which are used conventionally. For example, there's a WW-II era 3-inch gun which is usually referred to as 76.2mm. Following the standard significant figures rule would have us round that off to 80mm, which I think everybody would agree is just plain wrong. So I think the answer is we should do whatever the literature of the day did. If the contemporary references said 20.3cm, that's what we should say. If they're mute on the metric conversions, then I'd say for the purposes of this article, either 20 cm or 20.3 cm would be good enough. RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
    • Metric conversions are not common in American Civil War literature so I think it's OK rounded. Hog Farm _Talk 01:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
      • Fair enough - it's probably a topic that predominantly interests American readers. Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
• Mortar Flotilla redirects to Union blockade but is not mentioned there - can we get a short explanation of what the unit was added here?
  • Yeah, I can add something to the West Gulf Blockading Squadron section. It will probably be Saturday before I can get to that though. Hog Farm _Talk 01:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Nice work with the article! Parsecboy (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: - Thanks for your review! I've moved the number of eventual ships to an endnote and have added a couple of sourced sentences about the mortar flotilla to the Union blockade article. Hog Farm _Talk 16:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me, happy to support now. Great work on the article! Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Does "The Capture of New Orleans 1862" have a comma? Is "War on the Waters: The Union & Confederate Navies, 1861–1865" the correct title? Sources seem OK otherwise, don't have access to most though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I've added a comma to The Capture of New Orleans per the Library of Congress Cataloging-In-Publication data from the copyright page of the book. Jo-Jo Eumerus - Is there something different that you are expecting to see for the title of the McPherson work? I've changed the ampersand to the spelled-out word per the title page and copyright information (the front cover uses the ampersand). Browning is available on Project MUSE through the Wikipedia Library; I own print copies of all of the other secondary source books and can provide quotes/scans if you want to do any source checking. Hog Farm _Talk 23:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Apparently Google Books has a different capitalization. Let's check references #20 and #35 then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay - Gatoclass is at work on polishing this article up a bit (I'm embarassed by what I missed regarding the engines etc.) This is the version as of your comment:

[35] supports "Boggs wrote in his official report dated 29 April that four members of the ship's crew were killed and nine wounded, and that four of the Marines aboard were also wounded;" - this is online and can be found here. The first page mentions 4 killed and 9 wounded, with the Marines losses being in the second-to-last paragraph of the report on the second page (the one beginning with "The marines, although new recruits ...")

[20] is one of two citations for "The lead Union ship was the Unadilla-class gunboat USS Cayuga, which moved towards Fort St. Philip and engaged the Confederate ironclads CSS Louisiana and CSS Manassas. Varuna fired into the duel, damaging both the Union and Confederate vessels, and the screw sloop USS Oneida came to the aid of Cayuga as well." but this citation is only present to support the class of ships for Cayuga and Oneida. It's a little bit awkward - Oneida is listed on p. 39 as part of the Iroquois class, which is part of the larger heading for screw sloops which begins on p. 35. Cayuga is on a list of Unadilla-class gunboats on p. 49. It will be simple to send over a scan for p. 49 and Cayuga, but how do you want me to handle the Oneida bit where p. 35 is the start of the heading section which Oneida is included within on p. 39. Hog Farm _Talk 23:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

So p.39 is a list that begins at p.35? I am not sure how to interpret that last sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - yes, that is a fairly accurate way to describe it. There have been a few sources added in Gatoclass's additional work to this article, although we're still working out one awkward footnote. Hog Farm _Talk 00:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Gatoclass

This article still needs a little work IMO, so this is just a heads-up that I intend to make a few changes and additions before endorsing it. Gatoclass (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this! Hog Farm _Talk 03:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll let you know when I'm done :) Gatoclass (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I have pretty much finished my edits to the article now. Please let me know if you have an issue with any of the edits I have made, and we'll take it from there. Gatoclass (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm fairly embarassed to have taken something to FAC that ended up requiring that much work. Work has gotten busy for me but I will hopefully have time to take a look tomorrow evening. Hog Farm _Talk 02:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: - I'm not a huge fan of the Charles/Cornelius Bushnell footnote and would rather not have to have that sort of speculative footnote if we can find a source to avoid it. Do you think this source (another link because the one used in the article isn't working for me today) identifying the ship as being purchased from Mallory and "C. S. Bushnell" could be satisfactory if thrown in as a second citation with the newspaper ref (which contains the details about the half ownership which my proposed source doesn't have) to buttress to Bushnell identity? Then we could dispense with the awkward footnote, if you think that's a sufficient way to handle it. Hog Farm _Talk 00:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

The problem with adding new sources is that they also often have errors that then require new footnotes :)

Anyhow, I'm not going to make a big deal of it, so I have added a couple of additional cites instead.

Assuming you have no further objections to the content I added, there is one more issue with the article that I'm a tad concerned about. That is that there is no mention of the claim by Boggs - that he may well have believed - that he sank six Confederate vessels in the battle. The claim seems to have been widely promoted through the media of the day, and may have aided Boggs' career (Boker's poem credits him with five sinkings and one withdrawal). Any comments? Gatoclass (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: - From a quick look through several of the sources focuses on the naval battle, I've been able to add this so far. Dufour's The Night the War Was Lost does not appear to mention this claim unless it's buried in a footnote somewhere, or does Chatelain's work (which has a larger scope but does go into detail on the battle) or Bielski recent introductory-level overview of the topic. I can keep looking if you feel that more needs added. Apologies for the delays in responding to your concerns - there's been a lot of turnover at my work since I nominated this which has led to me being much busier IRL than I anticipated a month ago. Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Varuna fired into the duel, damaging both the Union and Confederate vessels, and the screw sloop USS Oneida came to the aid of Cayuga as well ... Encountering three Confederate gunboats, Varuna fired at them and continued upriver.[30] In the chaos, projectiles from Varuna caused friendly fire casualties on Cayuga. So, Varuna accidentally fired on Cayuga twice - once during the "duel" between Cayuga and the ironclads, and then again further upriver when firing on the gunboats? Or is this an accidental conflation of the same incident? Gatoclass (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: - This is the result of some jumbling caused by trying to reconcile the incompatible narratives of Browning, Winters, and Hearn. I've rewritten this whole paragraph to cut down on the level of detail since there is not agreement between sources. So sticking with the essentials of Varuna is running threw this at high speed, fires on various Confederate vessels, then shoots into the melee of various ships which are no longer named, (one source says Cayuga vs the ironclads [Winters], another has Cayuga vs Governor Moore after Cayuga fought the ironclads [Browning], and another has Oneida vs. Govenor Moore [Hearn]) which caused casualties/damage on Cayuga. Hog Farm _Talk 02:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Farragut would have both a fleet of warships and the Mortar Flotilla.

Well, mortar schooners are also warships, are they not? Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The intention was to distinguish between vessels intended for ship vs ship combat and the mortar vessels, which were intended to be basically floating gun platforms. Porter's mortar boats were also a separate organization from the other ships; I've rephrased a bit. Hog Farm _Talk 02:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm done hassling you now :)

I don't think I can add a support !vote at this stage, given that I've added a fair degree of content myself. But I certainly have no reason to oppose. So it looks like this one is ready for promotion - congrats! Gatoclass (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Volcanoguy

• "According to the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS)..." The use of this acronym in the article is probably unnecessary since it is used only three times.

I didn't see anything else worth commenting on. Well-written article. Volcanoguy 15:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Volcanoguy: - If you feel strongly about this, I can remove the abbreviation, although I will note that the use of this acronym is very very common and the source is possibly as recognizable or more by this abbreviation than by the full written-out name. Hog Farm _Talk 00:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. The abbreviation is very widely used, and spelling out the full name in three different places would only add clutter to the narrative IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings toward using the acronym I just don't think it's needed. But I am willing to let it slide. Volcanoguy 15:34, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships is a mouthful; I think it's worth the acronym even if only used twice. RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Support. Volcanoguy 18:57, 27 July 2025 (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. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Eddie891

I hope to offer a full review, but just a comment for now that (per WP:SCHOLARSHIP) I don't think Grahn 2013 should be included, as undergrad theses aren't high quality reliable sources, and probably the same for Pipkins 2024. Pipkins you could maybe make a case for if it has had a major impact or he is generally considered an expert on video games, but I can't see either as true here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, that's fair. They were students. I did not find their other work, so I'll remove them. I was not able to find other scholarly work on the game beyond them and the others that are in the article. The game seems to be mostly mentioned in passing mentions, without anything substantial that could contribute to the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Eddie891:. Are you still interested in giving the nomination a full review? It's alright if you don't want to / don't have time to do it. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Probably don't have the time unfortunately. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

No problem! Cheers. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

ImaginesTigers

I'm going to leave some initial high-level questions for you rather than a full line-by-line review at this time (with 2 exceptions concerning the lead).

• I've never played this game (or Minecraft), but the lead doesn't explain to me how the game is played (e.g., "The player controls [thing] from [Y] perspective. Gameplay comprises exploration, combat, crafting," etc)? I don't know what "special events" are – are these like out-of-world events (like Christmas) or events the player triggers? I think overall the gameplay sentences in the lead don't explain the game to me
  • Sandbox game should explain that. There are no goals in Terraria. You can do whatever you want (explore, engage in combat, craft, build, and mine, as mentioned in the lede). If you thought that it was not clear, I have now reworded and expanded that part. Does it look better? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I think just get a 2nd opinion on this (feel free to revert to your original) – I still don't get it. It makes it sound like biomes are like levels, and you progress through biomes by gathering enough resources to beat bosses.

Honestly, I don't really know what to change in that paragraph. I've asked Rolling for a 2nd opinion. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Having a look now per ImaginesTigers reassurance below. I haven't previously looked at the lead, but looking at it now, it is letting a wikilink to sandbox game do the heavy lifting of explaining what is involved. Perhaps we can be a lot more explicit, saying "A sandbox game, Terraria has no set goals. Instead, the player is presented with a unique 2D world to explore, mine, fight in, craft, and build within." As for the other bits... I may need some assistance from Vacant what they are trying to express. "It has several world difficulties" Can you list three out on this page as examples? "such as those who spawn at a certain time or location or during events" Is this fact crucial to the game? I still am not sure what an event is.

Is there a way you can zoom out from this stuff, to give a more general description of activities rather than listing major activities? Not sure if this is helpful, but I agree that the lead isn't very clear. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 13:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I've addressed your issues. Tell me if it sounds better now. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Massive improvement. I get it now. Thank you! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I've taken a quick stab at rewriting it to "zoom out" a bit, removing some of the detail. Let me know what you think of this. I think it's trying to pack too much information into the lead and losing sight of the forest because of the trees.

• A sandbox game, Terraria has no set goals. The player creates their character by selecting a character class and is placed in a two-dimensional, procedurally generated world. In this world, the player explores, fights enemies, gathers resources and crafts equipment. The game has several difficulty options. Players beat bosses to progress through the game. By completing select goals, players receive access to powerful new resources.

If the game includes multi-player, would it be worth including here ("It can be played alone or with others")? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't see this before I sent my last comment, I really like this suggestion. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 14:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

You do not 'select' a character class when creating a player. This is chosen by the player in-game. They can also disregard the classes and play with all weapons if they want. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

It sounds better now. Some more comments:

• The Before the creation of a world... sentence is too much. Why don't e extend the framing of the previous sentence, along the lines of "the player's control extends to other areas, including their character's appearance and the game's difficulty."
• are necessary to defeat → can be defeated
• What does it mean to "progress through the game" in a sandbox game?
• offer services to he player Still unclear on what these services are

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 13:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I've combined both of your suggestions. What do both of you think now? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I still think there's slightly too much detail for a lead in a few key elements (primarily the bit about NPCs; defining what an enemy is; and including how mods work over their importance to the game's community). These aren't deal breakers and I'm happy with the lead now. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I've decided to keep the definition of a boss in the lede because I've seen it being done in other video game FACs (with video game glossary that might not be familiar to most readers). NPCs also have a huge part in the game, so I think that they deserve a mention in the lede. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Development began in January 2011 by Andrew Spinks. I think this feels a bit awkwardly worded. Why not something clearer: Andrew Spinks started developing the game in 2011 with support from a team of testers and designers. Ideally I want to understand the context of development just from leading the lead, because it's the only thing a lot of people will read. If the music is an important part of Terraria, we could include the composer in there? What did Spinks do? Was he working another job at the time?
  • There's sadly not a lot of information on the early development of Terraria. I know that he worked previously on a different game (Super Mario Bros X.), I've now incorporated that in the article (I only found a brief mention, nothing beyond that). Beyond that, I was not able to find much information in RS. I've slightly expanded the lede with the information we have. (There is coverage in unreliable sources , , ). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
• If the game has received substantial updates since release (considerably changed the game from its first version) is there no critical coverage on how reception has changed over those 10 years (i.e., League of Legends#Reassessment)? For example I found this article (unused) about how the devs have been trying to move on but can't due to its popularity – I don't see coverage of its development across time, or critical reappraisals. What we have in there is patch notes and platform releases, essentially. I've heard of Terraria, which makes me think the devs will have given a lot of interviews on problems / stuff that's going on / commentary
  • Most of the reviews are from 2011 or when the game was released on different platforms. The only one who did a retrospective review are PC Gamer (the review present in the article is from 2018, the original is from 2011). Therefore, I don't think that we can form a separate section like for LoL. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I've left some feedback on this below

• I quickly found this article which has quite a lot of detail on Spinks making the game in his living room, relying on volunteer assistance, etc. That ref is used on the page to support a single sentence: Since the game's release, Re-Logic has released physical merchandise of the game. The most we get on early development in the (very large) dev section is 3 sentences, and then we skip to post-release updates. Are we utilising sources as widely as we can here? A Featured article should really be the most awesome possible resource for someone interested in the history of something. I don't know this game at all, but that I found this stuff missing without any knowledge rings some alarm bells for me. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't think that there should be any problems beyond that one, considering that I added that reference just recently and did not have time to look at it deeply enough. I've added more information from that source now. I'll take another look at it again later to see if I missed something. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
• Very similar is this large unused PC Gamer article about the game's many "final updates" (calling it a running joke).
  • "The last update" has also quite become a meme in the community, considering that 1.4 (Journey's End) was supposed to be the last update, but despite that developers have continued updating the game. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

If it's not worth including, understood – it just felt big to me that a developer had repeatedly said "this is the last one" and "we want to move on" but kept producing content because the game's a cash cow (possibly due to modding?)

I did not mention it in that sentence, but I've included it in the article and the lede. See "Despite announcing that the 1.4 update would be the final update for the game, Re-Logic has continued developing the game.[73][74] Spinks said that "there is so much demand it makes it hard to move on".[73] Since then, the "final update" promise has become a meme in the Terraria community." I did not find any connection with modding, though. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of the list of 14 platforms. The earliest of these was released in 2011 (Windows) with the last over a decade later. A lead should be a high-level summary, providing I think it's better to provide an encyclopaedic overview (e.g., grouping together types of releases) rather than a straight listing of every platform, including 2 discontinued ones (Stadia and Windows Phone). If the game has changed substantially across release, doesn't a sort of timeline make sense? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I've condensed this to "The game has also been ported to different platforms, including home video game consoles, handheld consoles, mobile phones, and operating systems." I've also added "The game has seen the addition of new items, NPCs, enemies, and world difficulties, as well as quality-of-life and crossovers with different games." Does it look okay now? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes

Further thoughts

• When I was looking for sources, most of what I was seeing was modding coverage. The Gamer mentions that the scene is (enormous. I get the feeling that modding really matters here to the game and its longevity, but a quick CTRL+F shows modding isn't mentioned anywhere on the article. A few more examples:

• The soundtrack of a mod beat the game's official soundtrack on a Best Of list, which was covered quite widely (e.g., GamesRadar)
• Dedicated coverage on when mods became available to specific updates (PCGamesN).

• There is literally an entire paragraph on modifications. Also, TheGamer is not a high quality source therefore it won't be included in the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a paragraph on modifications being available (and what they can change in gameplay terms) – I'm referring to it being a major part of the game's appeal/ongoing playerbase though, right? TheGamer is reliable post-2021 (and looks useful here), and there are 2 other sources above (GamesRadar and PCGamesN) in addition to IndieWire saying below it's a major part of the game's longevity. With the PC Gamer re-review, and probably others I'm not seeing, I think there's enough material here to have a dedicated section on how the game changed over time, mods

TheGamer has been considered a reliable source for few years, that's correct. But it's not a high-quality source. I've seen it being removed at FAC alongside Screen Rant and Game Rant. I've incorporated more info about modding from more sources into a new section. I did not include the PCGamesN article considering that the mods mentioned in the article were already available previously, it's just that once the 1.4.4 update was released the mods also received updates. Also, it looks like I included the 2011 PC Gamer review in the article, I just forgot to add it in the table. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• I notice this 10-year retrospective from IndieWire that isn't used (link). There's some useful info in there, and it does mention the huge modding scene: “Terraria” has had a bustling fan-driven modding scene for years, and though it’s difficult to quantify how important modding has been to the game’s longevity, it’s clear that a significant fraction of the game’s audience enjoys playing modded versions of “Terraria”. What do you think?
  • Incorporated in the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: Thanks for your nice review. I've hopefully resolved all of your comments besides the first one for the lede. Please tell me how the "Reassessment" article looks like. I've searched a bit more into modding, but could not find much more content that also goes back into pre-tModLoader era. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The reassessment section is looking good. Thank you for your work!

I feel there might still be a bit more we can use of the IndieWire article. Here's some stuff from IndieWire we're leaving off right now:

• Commentary on it as an outlier in the wider industry: “Terraria” is an outlier in the video game industry, and not just because of its lasting popularity.
• Commentary on where they get "most" of their employees (the community) and customer interaction: That philosophy has also extended to how Re-Logic, which sourced most of its employees from the “Terraria” community, interacts with its consumers; the Re-Logic team regularly mingles with its audience on community forums and social media platforms. The company is also one of the few in the modern gaming industry that has given the OK to consumers to mod their game; modding, fan-created content for video games created using official or unofficial development tools, used to be prevalent in all sorts of video games. Game studios and publishers began clamping down on the practice as microtransactions became more common in the industry but “Terraria” has served as one of the industry’s few modern exceptions to the rule.
• Commentary on the lack of microtransactions. The existing reference to this in the article is this: Since then, Spinks has refused to offer the updates for money, describing it as "the right thing to do" in his opinion (2017). I don't have any problems with including this, but compare it to the analysis from IndieWire (which includes 2021 statements from Spincks instead and contextualises it within the wider industry).

• That kind of decision is a rare one in the video game industry. Many video game companies, particularly the industry’s larger publishers and studios, have taken a liking to microtransactions (game content that costs additional real-life money beyond a game’s initial asking price) such as battle passes and gambling mechanics like loot boxes, in the years since “Terraria” originally released. The increasing prevalence of microtransactions has become such a contentious issue in video game communities that game publishers have made a point to highlight their products that lack microtransactions for positive press.
  Microtransactions have proven profitable for many companies despite the controversy surrounding them. Regardless, Murphy noted that the strong early sales figures for “Terraria” enabled Re-Logic to actively support the game without charging customers additional money for new content.

When looking at this kind of coverage, I think it belongs in a "Development" section.

• A lot of the "Development" section right now is not really development (or even about the developer. Beyond the first paragraph, it is primarily about releases—e.g., content releases, platform releases, integration with other games.

We don't need every section to be huge. While it isn't near FAC yet, can you see the approach I used for Baldur's Gate #Release? That's where the post-release stuff went. For the "there is no microtransactions" commentary, that went in the second heading of Development. The sections on "release" are quite small because there wasn't much sourcing for me to work with.

I'm wondering if the development section on Terraria should be much shorter, with dedicated Release heading (or subheading) given how much more stuff there is there. Interested in your thoughts, as this is your work, and well done again on integrating the modding stuff. Minus the gameplay part, I'm satisfied my concerns above are addressed. Thank you — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll get back to your comments when I address Rolling's. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, so what I have done is next: I've split up the Development and release into each of its section. In the Development section, I incorporated more material from IndieWire and other decisions Re-Logic made during the development. In the release section, I've split it up into: "Post-release", where all updates are located, including crossover content, and "Platform releases", where non-PC platform release dates are listed (I've also grouped them by category: home console, handhelds, OS, mobile). What do you think now? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that – I think it has a really good shape now. I've made a few tweaks. I've tried to beef up the development section: I looked at some used found some useful info – one mentioned that Minecraft dude tweeted about the game and caused a spike in interest. I bulked out the material from IndieWire by tying it together with other sourcing. For the post-release section, I still thought it needed more commentary on how the updates have impacted the game, so I cut down the bit about not charging, added the microtransactions part to it, and added a line from gamesindustry.biz the game's success has been a result of the updates. Let me know what you think. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thank you for your work and for your review, @ImaginesTigers:! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

While looking at the sources, I noticed I screwed up the date fields for some of them—I have fixed them (here). Sources look uniform again and I'm satisfied on comprehensiveness—I can't find anything else (and I've looked quite a bit at this point). Thank you for taking the feedback well and collaborating with me. Support. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, ImaginesTigers. I appreciate it. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Support from Rollinginhisgrave

Hi Vacant, I wasn't going to review this but looking over it a few things sucked me in. I'll start with them and then keep running, which means I'll be jumping over the place a bit:

• Academics Marina Adriana Mercioni, Robert Bogdan Cazacu, and Stefan Holban described Terraria as a "global [success]" in the pixel art genre of video games. This isn't really analysis, it fits better in reception.
  • Moved.
• "raises questions of ecology" What questions?
  • Well... it does not go beyond that. I'll just go ahead and remove it.
• In his study, scholar Ji Soo Lim noted This also isn't really analysis. It would surely fit better gameplay?
  • Moved.
• a sequel to the original game This is implied
  • Removed.
• The game starts in a procedurally generated world, with players starting out with basic tools and a non-player character (NPC) guide that teaches the player about aspects of the game and progression. Are caves one of these biomes? A bit unclear.
  • I think that you have pasted the wrong paragraph. But no, caves are not a biome. There are two separate biomes: "underground", which is below the surface, and "cavern", which is below the underground and above the underworld (hell). I did not, however, find sources discussing biomes (besides GameRant but this is not a high-quality source). I could add this: which does not mention caverns but has a detailed list of "underground" biomes. What do you think? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
    • I think I was being a bit too nitpicky the first time around, it looks fine. Sorry for the trouble. - RIHG
      • No worries. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
• I don't love that you say that players can increase their health/mana through crafting, and only then go onto introduce crafting.
  • I've swapped the sentences.
• Reviewers have compared the game to Minecraft. Sounds like (looking at ru:Terraria) they go a lot further than that, which is why Peele made their comment.
  • I've mentioned the reason why they have compared it to Minecraft.
• I've removed a little bit in my copyedit, but I think a sweep of WP:THEGAME would be good.
  • DOne.
• The game has several difficulty modes: the default "classic" mode, "expert", and "master" modes Classic mode and not expert being the default is implied
  • Done
• The rest of the above sentence is pretty clunky (e.g. "the latter two of which increase the difficulty in exchange")
  • Split up.
• A player's class is defined by the equipment they use throughout the game I think rearranging this into "The equipment a player uses defines their class" is better
  • Done
• players can also encounter a variety of enemies Why also?
  • lol, removed.
• Does Wall of Flesh need an article?
  • Yes, added it.
• Can you elaborate on what a special event is?
  • I did not find sources that actually describe what it is. There are several verions of special events: those triggered by a player (using an item), which are mentioned in the article, and those triggered during a specific time of the year (e.g. Halloween and Christmas). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
    • I think briefly giving the example of Halloween would make it clearer.
      • I've included "The Halloween-themed special event introduced special paintings, gear, and goodie bags." in the "Post-release updates". I've moved it to Gampleay.
• Can you further explain what tModLoader is?
  • Done.
• Link digital distribution
  • Done.
• rework the mechanics of the game to provide players with a different experience Unclear what this means
  • Done.

Pausing for now, I'll get to the rest soonish. A copyedit here can be reverted as you see fit. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 01:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC) Continuing:

• The game was released earlier than planned → This was earlier than planned
  • Done.
• "since a beta version had been leaked to the public." The beta was the release? Or it was released in response.
  • Basically, the beta version was sent out to game testers and someone ended up leaking it on the Internet.
• So he charged for version 1.1.?
  • No.
• in his opinion Cut
  • Done.
• Link port to Port (video gaming), and probably briefly gloss what it is
  • Done.
• You repeat "of that year" a few times, and they're rarely necessary when it's later or very close to the previous date and you're talking in past tense.
  • This was done by the copyeditor. I've changed it now.
• Can you break up the Development and release section with subheadings?
  • I'll look what I can do considering that ImaginesTigers has suggested to do a similar thing. Will get back to this.
• There are a lot of dates in the Development and release section. If you're willing to compromise at all on the level of detail, and the dates aren't crucial, consider moving things like it was released in Europe on December 11, 2013, and in North America on December 17 of that year → it was released in Europe and North America in mid-December. Another thing you can do is to try to get rid of the announcements and their dates when they're exclusively sourced to primary sources. If secondary sources are emphasizing it (e.g. "it's been a long and intense wait since the announcement in XXXX") then keep those ones.
  • Well... dates are used in the infobox, that's why they are there. So I'd rather keep them as it is. The primary sources are currently used to back up: "In December 2018, 505 Games announced that DR Studios would take over development of the mobile version, and Pipeworks would focus on the game's Switch port;[70] DR Studios took over development of the console and Switch versions of Terraria in August 2020." Do you want me to remove this?
• I almost think with the volume of dates and releases listed in the history section, would it be better to create a table? And then have a narrative summary for the history. Not sure if it's possible.
  • I have never seen this on a video game article, even with those who have huge platform releases like Terraria.
• I don't think it's necessary to shorten DLC if you only use it once more afterwards, and quite a way further down.
  • Done.
• It introduced new items Clarify the subject
  • Done.
• A Labor of Love update I'm not sure what this needs; quotation marks, a better description, but it needs something else.
  • It was the name of an update.
• When you write "Its large amount of content has been praised by critics." It is unclear if you mean critics as a class, or multiple critics. The sources verify the first, and two sentences you contradict the latter, but it most plainly reads as this.
• I'm a little unsure of how to assess comprehensiveness. I see this review which is huge and reviewing the fourth major update, and it makes me wonder why there is so much focus in the reception section on how the game ran in Xbox, Playstation, iOS instead of this. Maybe just not reflected in the sources.
  • Basically, I took a look at English-language reliable and high quality sources at WP:VG/RS. It seems like I missed something related to modding, which is now in the article. I did not, however, look at other language articles, considering that I thought that the English-language ones would already be sufficient and cover everything that is needed for the article.
    • I think it's worth looking in on other languages. The review I pointed to above mentions (machine translated) "A small warning at the end: You can basically play Terraria with German text. At the time of testing, however, there were still a few minor gaps, for example, when you ask your villagers about their happiness. It's not earth-shattering, but you'll still have to deal with the occasional English-language text window." I think for FAC there needs to be some engagement with these sources to see if they cover different content.
      • Okay, I've took a look at other non-English sources and I've incorporated them in the article. The GameStar source seems to be a retrospective review from 2020 (like how PC Gamer did it in 2018). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
        • Put the original quote in a footnote, see for instance in Masala y Maíz. - RIHG

I'll pause again, as I want to run through again after I hear how you comment on my points about the Development and release section. Thanks, Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 09:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey, @Rollinginhisgrave:. I'll address your comments shortly, but I want to hear your 2nd opinion on the first paragraph of the lede. ImaginesTigers has said that they do not quite understand what the game is about even after reading that part. If you're also of that opinion, I'd like to see what I can improve in that part. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I'm the best placed to give that sorry. I haven't played Terraria, but I am familiar to an extent with what it involves. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 12:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

For the record, I think that makes you perfect to give a 2nd opinion – I also haven't played the game. The relevant exchange is here. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I second this. I've been playing the game for 14 years so I understand what I tried to say. I need an opinion of someone not familiar with the game. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: I should have addressed most of your comments (see replies because I left questions). If you have more of them, please let me know. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, back from the top:

• designers, while it is now developed → designers. Today, Terraria is developed
• while the crafting system has been viewed as being complex. This is set up in opposition with the praise of the rest, implying it is criticised for this. Is this intentional?
  • Yes, considering that the sentence covers gameplay aspects.
• "Re-Logic developed a separate game" As someone who doesn't play video games, this reads as ambiguous whether the game was released.
  • Cut
• The first sentence of Gameplay is overly long
  • Split it up.
• I think it's worth mentioning that the character class can change.
  • Done.
• What are "combat mechanics"
  • Basically, the AI does not act like a normal enemy. They attack the player diferently. I've reworded it.
• After acquiring NPCs, players may buy or sell items from NPCs with coins or obtain services from them A bit clunky here with the close repetition of NPC
  • Done.
• Thanks for expanding on tModLoader. I'm still... unsure what it is, being unfamiliar with modding. Is it an application?
  • It's just a modified version of the game. I've clarified it.
• Google contacted Re-Logic later that month about the account shutdown, clarifying the situation and restoring the company's accounts; Re-Logic reaffirmed that it would release it for Stadia, doing so on March 18 Can you just cut this to "Google restored the company's accounts later that month, and Re-Logic released Terraria for Stadia on March 18."?
  • done
• In December 2018, 505 Games announced that DR Studios would take over development of the mobile version A bit unclear from the source, but it seems like they already had?
  • "Following that line of thinking, and so that our friends at Pipeworks can focus on the very exciting Switch version, giving it maximum resource/focus, we’ve asked the equally awesome internal (to 505 Games) team at DR Studios to take the reins of 1.3 mobile and focus on bringing that to life." I can't see what you see.
• Is "promise" the best way to describe the "final update" matter?
  • I've changed it to "announcement"
• Academics Marina Adriana Mercioni, Robert Bogdan Cazacu... I don't think this needs attribution, rather a simple "Terraria has been particularly successful in the..."
  • removed
• Link physics engine
  • Done.
• What is "the Corruption"? A virus? Person? Enemy type?
  • Sources do not really go in depth what it is. In regular Terraria, Corruption is a biome. But I'm not sure if they were refering to the same thing.

All done! Looking a lot better. Some replies above as well. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 12:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey, Rollinginhisgrave. I should have addressed all of your comments. I've also incorporated non-English references in the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Vacant, moving to support, thanks for your patience here. Just left one more small note above. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 16:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your review! I appreciate it. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

750h

• Looking at this! ping me if i don't get to this soon. 750h+ 12:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot, 750h. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

starting review today! feel free to refuse my suggestions with justification ! 750h+ 14:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

lead

• access to non-player characters (NPC) who ==> "access to non-player characters (NPCs) who"
• controls for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, and the retro-styled sprites were also positively add a comma after "sprites"

gameplay

• their class (e.g. melee players ==> "their class (e.g., melee players"
• combat mechanics, including seasons, fire spread, and modifies the player's ==> "combat mechanics, including seasons, fire spread, and modify the player's "
• a modification that combines several different modifications into one, such as "The Bereft Souls", which combines modifications such as Calamity, Thorium, and Consolaria.[37] "modification/modifications" is used three times in the sentence. can we have some form of range in the words?

development

• and most of their staff has been hired ==> "and most of their staff have been hired"

release

• Terraria has received many updates since the official release, adding a significant volume of content. is "adding a significant volume of content" needed?

reception

• no problems here.

legacy

• In order to fund the game ==> "To fund the game"

@Vacant0: excellent work! enjoyable read and nicely-written; happy to support once the above are addressed! 750h+ 14:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, 750h. All should be done now. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Support! great work! 750h+ 08:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

TheBritinator (image review)

Hello! Since there hasn't been an image review conducted for this nomination yet, I will do one now, albeit there is only two non-free ones so I am sure this will be quick.

• File:Terraria Steam artwork.jpg: Non-free game cover with solid rationale as standard with most video games. I see no issues here.
• File:Terraria screenshot.png: Non-free gameplay with solid rationale also standard with video game articles to visualise the gameplay of said game. Again, no issues.

Both images have no apparent issues and adequate alternate captions, so I think it is safe to say that I can pass this. Good luck! TheBritinator (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Arconning

Here's some comments from me! Quite well written so I guess I'd have to be nitpicky. Arconning (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• The game was initially set to end development in 2012,, replace comma with semicolon for flow.
• I'm a bit skeptical on the usage of "Terraria community", I see that it's cited but I could see it being mixed up for something else. If ever, I personally think it should be changed with "Terraria fan base" or something similar along the lines of it. If you choose to keep this, I suggest removing the second instance of "Terraria community" and replacing it with just "community".
• As of 2025, Re-Logic comprises 11 people, I feel like it's better to spell out eleven.
• The game's success enabled Spink, Spinks?
• would be dropped in favor of Pipeworks, due to the game being behind schedule., drop the comma for flow.
• it was released in Europe on December 11, 2013, and in North America on December 17. , I'm guessing on the same year?
  • Thanks for the review, Arconning. All should be done now. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

  Support on prose. Arconning (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Source review by Icepinner

Vacant requested for a source review off-Wiki, which captured my interest. Note that I'm inexperienced with the FAC criteria (I have only reviewed Sengkang LRT line) and this is the first official source spot-check I'm doing, so patience is greatly appreciated. I have also taken the liberty to check for any copyvio using Earwig. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 15:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• It should be mentioned in the first sentence of both the lead and the main article that Terraria is a *video* game.
  • done.
• "who sell items and offer services, such as healing and fishing quests." I can see how a NPC can sell healing services, but would it be possible to have the second example be more intuitively graspable than "fishing quests"?
  • I've changed it to "fishing-related rewards". I assume it's clearer now.
• "Today, Terraria is developed by eleven members of Re-Logic." Avoid "Today", per MOS:NOW.
  • done.
• Any reason why item in the lead is not linked until its third mention?
  • seems like a mistake. Now the first mention is wikilinked.
• What is "the crafting system"?
  • I've cut it to just "crafting" because they are synonyms in this case and there is no really a reason to use the longer option.

A classy article. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• All should be done now. Thank you for your comments, Gog. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, "*video* game" needs to be mentioned? The genre name suffices for that; we don't need to mention that novel is a book? (I realize the FAC is closed, but it doesn't appear archived yet? IgelRM (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

IgelRM: It most definitely does. It most definitely does not. False equivalence, rather see the - promoted this afternoon - model first line "The Martinique macaw or orange-bellied macaw (Ara martinica) is a hypothetical extinct species of macaw ..." Yes, 'a macaw is a macaw'. We are an encyclopedia, these things are important. I have reverted the promotion and will recuse so we can debate the point. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll weigh in just to say that both options are okay for me, so I don't really care whether it says "video game" or just "game". I've only changed it because Gog wanted it to be included. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Vacant0, I appreciate the faith in my judgement. To me it goes to MOS:FIRST, part of the MoS, which states "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English." As there seems to be agreement among the sources that Terraria is a video game I don't see how the first sentence MoS requirement can be met without this being stated there. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 30 July 2025 (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) 14:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Image review

Here'll be some of my comments. Arconning (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• File:Edziza042909-- 027-6.jpg - CC BY 4.0
• File:Canada British Columbia relief location map.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Edziza cones and lava flow.jpg - Public Domain, please don't use a fixed px size. Use an |upright= configuration instead.

  Using upright makes the image smaller and the image text unreadable for PC users. Volcanoguy 15:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  Pass - Arconning (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

  I've swapped fixed px size to use upright; I forgot it's possible to use make images larger using upright. Volcanoguy 00:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• File:Edziza042909-- 023-5.jpg - CC BY 4.0
• All of the images have alt-text for accessibility.

Comments Support from Ganesha811

I should have time to review this over the next few days. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

• The cites appear to mostly be reliable academic and government sources. Just a few things on them:
• It's a bit odd to have Mussio as 3 separate citations, to pages 88, 89, and 88-89 together. It would make more sense to combine into a single citation.

• Can you confirm that Mussio is a reliable source? Per WP:ORMEDIA it's fine to cite maps, but they have to be accurate and well-regarded like any other source.

I don't find it odd; some sentences are citing information from a single page whereas others are citing information from more than one page. I brought this source to the reliable sources noticeboard in 2023 because I was not sure if it would be considered a reliable source and there was no objection to it being used. Volcanoguy 15:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• I don't have a copy, but isn't it a single map being cited? It would make more sense as a single citation. As to its reliability, that does seem to be well-beyond a self-published source and I've found some use by others. Not an issue, thanks for linking to the old discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  No, each page is of a different map. Volcanoguy 19:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  Fair enough, I guess. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• Why is Souther's name sometimes given as J.G., sometimes Jack, sometimes Jack G.? Please make consistent.

  That's what the sources use. Is there a guideline saying the names of authors should be consistent? I think changing them would go against the sources. Volcanoguy 15:09, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• I think consistency is helpful to avoid confusing the reader. If he had changed his name, that would be one thing, but these are just variants. I don't think our citations have to follow the sources precisely in a case like this; better to be consistent and (as we have) link to our Wikipedia article on him. It makes it clearer that all these various sources are by the same author. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• Let's see what other users think because I'm still not sure if the variants should be avoided. I could argue the author links avoid confusion because all of the variants link to the same person. Volcanoguy 22:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• Further comments to come.
• was the source of an extensive lava flow that travelled down the northern side of the Big Raven Plateau towards Buckley Lake. isn't this redundant of the last two sentences of the prior paragraph?

Not yet addressed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Modified this myself. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• Avoid duplicate links - Telegraph Creek and Buckley Lake are both linked twice in the lead. I recommend using User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to identify them.

  Removed. Volcanoguy 21:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• add "a man named" rather than just "a" before Hank Williams

  Done. Volcanoguy 21:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• No luck determining the specific year or date of the accident?

  No. Volcanoguy 21:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• is thought to be due to rifting thought by the authors of that source or by geologists generally?

  In general. Volcanoguy 21:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• Alpine Lakes Air and BC Yukon Air are the only air charter companies permitted to provide access to this area via aircraft add "As of 2025,"

  Done. Volcanoguy 21:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• Is any information visible on how many climbers/visitors Eve Cone receives annually? How about Mount Edziza Provincial Park generally?

  No. Volcanoguy 21:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• As mentioned on the article for the provincial park, Edzerza and Edziza may be etymologically linked - may be worth mentioning on this page.

  That's not important to the Eve Cone article is it? Volcanoguy 22:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I think a footnote or parenthetical mention would be appropriate. It was a question that came up for me as I was reading the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  Added "Johnny was buried on Mount Edziza; both Edzerza and Edziza may be etymologically linked." Volcanoguy 21:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• I assume the elevation given on the page and in the infobox are measuring from sea level - does any source give the cone's prominence?

  I know bivouac.com and peakbagger.com give the cone's prominence but those websites fail WP:RS because they consist of user-generated content. Volcanoguy 22:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  If a RS with the peak's prominence can be found, that would be an improvement, but if it doesn't exist, nothing we can do about that. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• Happy to support, whichever way the Souther cites end up. Overall, a well-written and interesting article with the right level of detail and jargon for the general reader. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Well over three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Any interest in reviewing this article? Volcanoguy 14:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I might have time this weekend depending on how things go. Hog Farm _Talk 14:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: You can't save it by doing a review? It's not a big article. Volcanoguy 19:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

VG, I'd like to review every FAC, but that's just not practicable. Although having done well over 600 FAC reviews it sometimes feels as if I do. And there's the rub: For each of my 76 FAC nominations, I have done more than 8 reviews. With a couple of exceptions I try to review a wide range of articles, whose nominators have themselves a decent review to nomination record - say 4 or better. I have done this for years, the more so since I have been a coordinator. As you have done 23 reviews while nominating 20 FACs - although only 11 were promoted - I don't think I will have picked many of yours to review.

In spite of this, and of being busy both in RL and on Wikipedia I was considering helping out here anyway, when I remembered your disappointing attitude at Dorothy Olsen. So, sorry, but per this similar recent response, I won't be reviewing. And with that I think I had best also recuse. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I'm sorry, but what does my attitude at the Dorothy Olsen FAC have anything to do with you? If someone doesn't want to help promote an article I've nominated then I have no reason to help them either. I'd rather play it fair instead of doing reviews and getting nothing in return, not to mention I don't visit the FAC page too often since I have no interest in most of the articles that end up being nominated (I have strict interests due to a neurodevelopmental disorder). I could have helped more users who have helped me over the years, but they don't ask for my help or let me know when they have nominated an article for FA. That's why I have done only 23 reviews over the years. Volcanoguy 22:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to note that a lot of the 20 FACs you mentioned are old and are from a time when I wasn't as skilled on bringing articles to FA status. Most of my FACs nowadays end up passing. Volcanoguy 15:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Review/support by JJE

• " that had blown in from the north" odd formulation

  How? Volcanoguy 14:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• I wonder if Femke, ImaginesTigers or RoySmith see any words ("rifting"?) that might need more explanation like a footnote.

  I'm not sure if "rifting" needs an explanation because even in the non-geological sense it means splitting or cleaving. Volcanoguy 15:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  Would agree with Volcanoguy here, rifting will likely be understood by a wide audience. The lead is quite dense, that might be a better place to work on MTAU. Most of the words individually are okay there, but overall it's tough to read due to the density of adjectives, nouns and names. With a bit of help of chatGPT, I suggest rewriting the bit of the lead like Eve Cone, also known as Eve's Cone, is a cinder cone located in the Cassiar Land District of northwestern British Columbia, Canada. It stands 1,740 metres (5,710 feet) tall and forms part of the Desolation Lava Field, at the northern edge of the Big Raven Plateau. Situated southeast of Telegraph Creek, it lies within Mount Edziza Provincial Park, one of British Columbia’s largest provincial parks.. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

  I did some revising in this part of the introduction but I don't think "It stands 1,740 metres (5,710 feet) tall" is correct since the cone itself is only 172 m (564 ft) tall. Elevation is generally understood to be how high something is above sea level. I didn't remove "the community of" just before Telegraph Creek because in North American English, a creek is a stream smaller than a river; a reader may not know Telegraph Creek is a community instead of a stream. I'm not sure if "forms part of the Desolation Lava Field" is correct since a lava field is a large, mostly flat area of lava flows; Eve Cone consists of ejecta rather than lava flows. Volcanoguy 16:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• "during the Holocene" bit of an odd place to put the age of the cone.

  Reworded. Volcanoguy 01:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• "both of which extend within " odd formulation

  How? Volcanoguy 14:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  I am not sure that "extend" would be the best term to describe a highway that at best passes by a landmark. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  Changed to "come within". Volcanoguy 17:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

• "The Buckley Lake to Mowdade Lake Route traverses south from Buckley Lake along Buckley Creek and gradually climbs onto the northern end of the Big Raven Plateau where Eve Cone and Sidas Cone are visible along the route" might border on a run on sentence

  How? Volcanoguy 14:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• The "drop a couple of random sentences into Google and see what pops up" method of finding plagiarism/copyvio didn't turn up anything suspect.
• Going by a source search it doesn't seem like anything was missed.
• Sauces, images and structure seem good.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Seems like everything's addressed, so putting a support here. Note that this review was requested at the Misti FAC, so coordinators should probably weigh it as a quid-pro-quo review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

HF

• "The symmetrical structure of Eve Cone suggests it was formed by a towering, vertical lava fountain during the Holocene." - does the symmetric structure actually speak directly to the age of the structure? Wouldn't that be speaking more to erosion or the lack thereof, which will correlated to age is not an absolute?

  Reworded. Volcanoguy 01:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Is the Mussio book self-published?

  No, see above. Volcanoguy 00:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Category:Parasitic cones of Mount Edziza - the article is in this category, but I'm not seeing where any point in the article that this is described as parasitic cones?'

  I've described it in the article. Volcanoguy 01:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I think this is in fairly good shape. Hog Farm _Talk 23:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I've addressed all of this. Volcanoguy 23:07, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Supporting Hog Farm _Talk 23:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Source review: passed

To follow. - SchroCat (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Formatting: all OK (I made one minor correction to speed things up).
• Spot checks on 6, 13, 16, 23 and 26 all support the information they claimed, with no concerns on close paraphrasing etc
• Range and reliability: All sources appear to be from reliable sources, as far as I can tell. I've run additional searches to find any missed sources, but none come up.
• Source review passed. - SchroCat (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2025 (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) 11:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Aoba47

• I am uncertain about this sentence: (A pop and soul song, the ballad's composition features drums, guitars, synthesizers, and piano.) I do not know if it is grammatically accurate, as it is saying that the composition is a "pop and soul song". Would it be accurate to describe a composition in this way?

  Moved to prior sentence: "produced the pop and soul track"

  Looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

• For this part, (A change in style due to her personal separation from Sony Music CEO Tommy Mottola), I would clarify that Carey was married to Mottola. I think that "personal separation" could be interpreted a number of ways, and I could see some readers who are either unfamiliar with Carey or this part of Carey's past not fully understanding her connection with Mottola.

  Changed to "A change in style due to her marital separation from Tommy Mottola, the head of the record label to which she was signed"

  I think that context is helpful. Thank you for adding the part on him being the head of the record label, as that is something I did not think about. Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

• I wonder if the Hammond B-3 link could be expanded to be clearer for readers who unfamiliar with this instrument. Maybe something like Hammond B-3 organ?

  Changed to Hammond B-3 organ and also changed EWI to electronic wind instrument

  Thank you for both of these edits. Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

• Would it be helpful to link hi-hat, for readers who may be less familiar with musical instruments? On the topic of wikilinks, the ones for verses and chorus should be moved up to the first instances the words appear in the article.

  Added link and moved up the links

• This is so random so apologies in advance. Did any of the critics bring up "There's Got to Be a Way", an earlier song that touched on racism? I was curious given the discussion on how "Outside" was the first song in which Carey talked about being biracial, but there was at least one earlier instance where she sang about race. These are obviously separate things though.

  Did not see any references to "There's Got to Be a Way"

  I figured as much, but thank you for answering this for me. Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

• I have a question about this part, (the biracial daughter of a white woman and a Black man). Since "Black" is capitalized, should "white" also be capitalized to be consistent? I am going to be completely honest here, but I am never quite sure which way is right so I cannot say either way. I was just curious on your opinion about it.

  I think per WP:RACECAPS it doesn't matter. I changed it to capitalize White to make it consistent though as both are used.

  Understandable. Thank you for the link and for the answer for this. Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

• I have a few comments on this part, (and Billboard's Jon O'Brien said it "undoubtedly succumbs to Carey's worst musical excesses"). Although I understand that both are retrospective reviews, I wonder if there is a way to more seamlessly tie together this review with Preezy Brown's review from earlier int he sentence. Maybe use "while" instead of "and" to present a contrast, as Brown and O'Brien seemingly have different viewpoints? I also wonder if other parts could be taken from the O'Brien interview, namely his point on the existential lyrics and his praise for Carey as a songwriter.

  Changing the wording to "while" would be problematic per MOS:EDITORIAL: "when used to link two statements, words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second." O'Brien is already cited to support the sentence "others thought they discussed existence". Granted he did have some positive things to say about the songwriting but he still ranked it at 11/12 of the album's tracks so it is an important viewpoint regarding more negative retrospective opinions about the song.

  Thank you for the answer. While I do not necessarily fully agree with MOS:EDITORIAL in this instance, I can understand the rationale behind it and why "while" in this instance would be best avoided. This should be good. Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

• Has Carey ever performed this song? I did see a video of her briefly performing it for The Butterfly Returns, but I am not surprised that a one-off, partial performance did not get coverage. This Billboard article (here) says that she has never performed this song live so it could be a useful source to clearly state that in the article.

  Added "Carey never performed the song live" to "development and release section"

  Thank you for adding that. Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. I have enjoyed reading through the article again. I believe that this should be everything, but I will re-read through the article several more times after my comments have been addressed. Best of luck with the FAC and I hope you are doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you! Heartfox (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I always enjoy seeing songs in the FAC process, specifically album cuts like this one. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Support from Rollinginhisgrave

Thanks for making the changes I requested last time. I've done a copyedit, feel free to revert any. I'll leave some comments on the whole article:

• Music critics interpreted the meaning of the lyrics in various ways Sentences of this type are almost always too vague to be useful.

  Changed to a more specific "Music critics thought the lyrics also had relevance for identities aside from race"

• A few too many quotes throughout the Composition section (MOS:QUOTE). Put some in your own words.

  Paraphrased Townsley's quote about the production and Kumamoto's interpretation of the lyrics

• I don't think the "influenced the subject matter" is great. Perhaps "her experience was shaped by incidents including..." something like that.

  Changed to "Carey's experience was shaped by incidents including"

• critics likened it in size to the Grand Canyon silly. I would cut.

  Cut

• undoubtedly succumbs to Carey's worst musical excesses which are...

  Paraphrased to "overproduced"

• regarding its impact on Carey's identity I doubt that the critics were discussing how the song impacted Carey's identity.

  Changed to Carey's public image

All done, very nice. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 07:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: Thank you! Heartfox (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for these changes. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 00:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Medxvo

• "the compilation album, Playlist: The Very Best of Mariah Carey" - Should the comma be removed here? The sentence would be incomplete without the album's title since we did not specify that it is her fourth compilation album

Thank you for the ping and for addressing my previous comments. Medxvo (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Medxvo: removed the comma. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, happy to support. Medxvo (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Support from Ippantekina

As my comments from the previous FAC were addressed, I'm happy to support this candidature. Great work as always, Heartfox! Ippantekina (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Cartoon network freak

• Music critics thought the lyrics also had relevance for identities aside from race and compared them to other songs by Carey -> I struggle a bit with understanding this sentence? Do you mean that the song also resonanted with people who felt alienated due to something other than their race?

  Changed to "Music critics thought the lyrics also had resonance for people with marginalized identities aside from race"

• Some felt "Outside" did not fit in with the album's hip hop musical direction and others considered it one of the better tracks. -> these are two contrasting views; I would rewrite to: "While some felt..., others..."

  Changed to "Some felt "Outside" did not fit in with the album's hip hop musical direction while others considered it one of the better tracks"

• The song has since received critical analysis regarding its impact on Carey's public image. -> this sentence doesn't say much. I would rather give a short overview over how it impacted her public image

  I don't know how to do this without going into original research

Maybe add something like this: "The song has since received critical analysis regarding its impact on Carey's public image, including as a role model of the LGBTQ community"

But only one person wrote that though; I don't think it is due weight to have one person's opinion in the lead

• her sixth studio album for Columbia Records -> I would rewrite to "on Columbia Records"

  Changed to "on"

• the head of the record label to which she was signed -> name the label

  I believe this is already eveident with the preceding sentence " her sixth studio album on Columbia Records."

I would rather name Columbia again. The prose does sound a little bit like the label "she was signed to" and the one who released Butterfly are different.

• Named Columbia again

• Its melody is soft in sound -> what makes a melody sound "soft"?

  I guess uncomplicated? (The source uses "mellow" - I am using "soft" as a synonym)

Is "mellow" and unencyclopedic word? I would rather use it instead of "soft".

Changed to mellow

• It features bass guitar (Artie Reynolds), drums (Nathaniel Townsley), electronic wind instrument (Michael Phillips), guitars (Michael Cirro), Hammond B-3 organ (Gary Montoute), keyboards (Afanasieff, Donald Parker, Dan Shea), synthesizers (Afanasieff), and piano (Parker) -> I would rewrite to: It features Artie Reynolds on bass guitar, Nathaniel Townsley on drums etc.

  That number of "on" would be very repetitive

• which would become more noticeable toward the choruses -> I would rewrite to something like "which would intensify in the refrains"

  Source does not indicate that the intensification begins in the refrains

In that case, I would rather write "which would intensify toward the refrains"

Done

• described the result: "Spare, pleading, this was Mariah stripped to the basics, lyrically and musically" -> described the result as "spare" and "pleading", further characterizing it as "Mariah stripped to the basics, lyrically and musically"

  Shortened the quote to "stripped to the basics, lyrically and musically"

• According to Carey, the "lyrics are about mainly being an outsider, growing up biracial, and that being the bane of my existence then in so many ways" -> apart from "being the bane of my existence then in so many ways", all the other things in her quote have already been said prior in the subsection. I would just keep the last part in her quote

  I do think the article would benefit from a full direct quote from the lyricist (mostly because this is so rare coming from Carey!) even though I agree it is mostly repetitive.

• Some suggested they were influenced by Carey's career experiences -> we need another wording here since "they" could also be talking about the identities

  Changed to "lyrics"

• I personally think what is included in the note could be easily fit into the section. Notes are usually for things that are to be noted but don't really fit in with the rest of the article/section

  I have noticed a trend in prior reviews where more people are suggesting combining things into a note rather than listing them all out. I tend to agree it's always best to summarize things when possible. One could argue the note is not even necessary and the sentence suffices.

• Broadway theatre-style of performance -> I would remove the "of"

  Removed

• In the music sample description, say which part of the song is featured ("A XY-second sample of the song's XY section") and give a short overview over how her voice shifts

  Changed to "Carey's vocals become more prominent during the song's climax"

The first part of the comment has not been addressed. For better clarity, I would rewrite to: "A 25-second sample of the song's climax, where Carey's vocals become more prominent"

I'm not sure why writing out the length of the sample is necessary when this is already evident with the timestamp

• and Billboard's Jon O'Brien said it was overproduced -> replace "and" with "while", since this is a contrasting view compared to the other reviewer

  Replaced

• and her cover version of "Against All Odds (Take a Look at Me Now)" -> her cover version of Phil Collin's...

  Added

• in which she described feeling alienated but never explained why -> "but never explained why" seems a bit unencyclopedic to me; maybe search for another wording?

  Changed to "in which she alluded to feeling alienated"

• represented Carey's varied exploitation of mulatta stereotypes: she can sing of not belonging yet act as a sex symbol in other media -> represented an example of Carey's exploitation of mulatta stereotypes—with her simultaneously singing of not belonging and being portrayed as a sex symbol in media

  I'm not sure about this, it could mean she is singing about being portrayed as a sex symbol, which is not the author's argument

In this case, I'd change to: "represented an example of Carey's exploitation of mulatta stereotypes—with her simultaneously singing of not belonging while being portrayed as a sex symbol by the media "

Changed to "represented Carey's varied exploitation of mulatta stereotypes as she can sing of not belonging, yet act as a sex symbol in other media"

• Rather than placing references in the "Credits and personnel" section, please use a line such as "Credits adapted from the liner notes of Butterfly.[18]" at the very top

  I have been told in the past to do the opposite

There are several FAs that use the wording suggested, e.g. "S&M". I think this is a way cleaner solution than linking the credits at a random place in the section.

It's not random; they're placed at the end of each section

A beautiful, well-researched article. I enjoyed learning more about the song. Once my comments are addressed, I'll happily support. I would also appreciate comments on my own music FAC. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: Thank you for the comments, I will check out your FAC soon :) Heartfox (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Heartfox: Thank you for having addressed my comments. I have added a few responses. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: Thanks, responded. Heartfox (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments again. Everything has been addressed. Supporting this nomination. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Christian

• The article is comprehensive and well-researched. It covers development, composition, lyrical content, critical reception, and scholarly interpretations with impressive depth.

• The use of academic and mainstream sources (e.g. The New York Times, Billboard, academic monographs, etc.) is excellent. Most claims are well-supported.

• The prose is clear, engaging, and maintains a neutral and encyclopedic tone.

• The article appears stable, and the structure follows the standard format for song entries.

Source and image review

I notice the absence of an infobox image. With the Afanasieff image, I kinda wonder how much we can trust the Flickr uploader given the amount of distinct cameras they use. Lots of magazine/news sources, I reviewed many of them in other FACses, source formatting is consistentish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Given that the person beside Afanasieff in the uncropped image is the Flickr uploader, I will assume that they have permission to share the photo under the license provided. Heartfox (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. Sometimes people forget that copyright belongs to the photographer, not to the subject of an image. Unless they commissioned it, in a few countries. Uncertain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I removed the image. Heartfox (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• Cite 40 contains a p/pp error.

  Fixed

• "The song has since received critical analysis regarding its impact on Carey's public image." Could we have a brief summary of the content of this critical analysis? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  Added "... as a biracial woman and as a role model for the LGBT community."

@Gog the Mild: Thank you, Heartfox (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2025 (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. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

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

HF

I'll review this soon, maybe this evening. Hog Farm _Talk 23:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• "In 1987, the American ornithologist Noel F. R. Snyder and colleagues also thought the Martinique macaw probably represented mainland blue-and-yellow macaws, but maintained that a poorly known, distinctive macaw had once lived on the island" - Is there any hope of getting ahold of the original Snyder work to see if it goes into any detail on why the researchers reached those conclusions, or is this one of those older print journal works that's effectively impossible to find a copy of these days?

It's a relatively recent book, but from before Ebooks, so for me here it's even more difficult to find, because old, public domain books and journals can usually be found on the Internet Archive or Biodiversity Library. I can try to ask for scans at WP:RX, they've helped me a lot in the past. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Now expanded Snyder's views after I received scans: FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• "As many as 13 extinct macaws have been suggested to have lived on the islands until recently" - like Jens, I think the "until recently" here is rather unclear - is this stating that people use to believe that 13 extinct macaw species were in the area, but that is no longer believed; or that there were 13 species of macaws in the area that went extinct in historic times?

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• "The violet macaw (Anodorhynchus purpurascens), which was named for accounts of blue parrots supposedly from Guadeloupe, is now thought to have been based on references to the Guadeloupe amazon (Amazona violacea)" - is such a strong phrasing, indicating that this is a general belief warranted? While well-reasoned, this seems to be the conclusion of primarily one recent paper

Went with "now suggested" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

This is in good shape. I've long wondered if a similar thing unwittingly occurs with the tendency to name new dinosaur species/genera based on extremely fragmentary remains; it's natural to believe you've found a new species rather than just subadult remains of an already-described one but the tendency to base some of the new species off of smaller differences in teeth or jaw fragments seems under-supported to me. Hog Farm _Talk 23:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

If you thought naming species based on fossil scraps was bad, there's a whole category of hypothetical extinct species based on little more than historical hearsay... But they're almost mythical, so quite fun to read and write about! Even the dodo was long thought to be such a myth, until the few museum specimens available were examined and more fossils found (and bones that may belong to the hypothetical Lesser Antillean macaw were discovered recently), so you never know what might get confirmed in the future. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Support - I don't think it would hurt to see if RX can pick up Snyder, but that source doesn't seem to be essential to the extent that it would fail the well-researched criterion. Hog Farm _Talk 16:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like the source might be on its way: FunkMonk (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

• File:Ara_martinica.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Ara_Erythrura.jpg

Added more inclusive tags. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

• Lead caption is overlong

Hmmm, is there any guideline dictating the length of captions? The caption here is necessary to establish context and connect the image to the article text. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

The context should be provided by the article text, rather than here. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't seem to take this view, see: WP:captions FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Also I'd suggest doing a pass through on citation formatting before someone does a full source review. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I did some, what do you have in mind? FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Some dates are ymd while others are mdy, domain names listed as publishers, publishers listed as authors, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Removed domain name as publisher from two URL sources. Made dates uniform. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• For the record, I've added an additional photo since this review that shows the blue-and-yellow macaw which some have suggested was the basis of the sightings of this species: FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Jens

• The Martinique macaw or orange-bellied macaw (Ara martinica) is a hypothetical extinct species of macaw which may have been endemic to the Lesser Antillean island of Martinique, in the eastern Caribbean Sea. – I feel that the technical term "endemic" is not strictly necessary for the first sentence of the lead, which should be as accessible as possible. You could just write "which may have lived on", which already implies that it did not live anywhere else.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• scientifically named – "Species description" is a more precise target for the wikilink. In the body, too.

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• but it may have been identified in a 1626 painting. – I am confused here; should it just be "depicted" instead of "identified"?

Changed to "depicted", but had tried to emphasise the discovery aspect with the former wording. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• link "dubious" in lead?

I considered linking nomen dubium, but realised none of the sources seem to say that outright in the taxonomic sense, as is more common in palaeontology. So I'm not sure... FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• so it is impossible to know – I would never say "impossible"; maybe "it is unclear whether …"?

Tried with "and it is therefore difficult to establish". FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• The taxon was solely based on a 1630s account – Why not simply "species" instead of "taxon"? This is more precise and more accessible, especially since you referred to it as a "species" just in the previous sentence. (The reader might assume you mean something different when you use different words for the same thing)

Replaced with species. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• also thought the Martinique macaw was probably mainland blue-and-yellow macaws – strange wording

Tried with "probably represented" instead of "was", any better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• but maintained that a poorly known, distinctive macaw had once lived on the island – This is a bit mysterious; why do they think there was a macaw if they don't believed in the Martinique macaw?

Seemed odd to me too, but I unfortunately don't have the book itself, only other sources summarising what they said... FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Now expanded Snyder's views after I received scans: FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Birdlife International does not have an entry for the Martinique macaw, but it was mentioned in that of the Lesser Antillean macaw (which was itself considered Not Recognized), and the IUCN Redlist considered the two possibly identical in their entry for the latter – I would split this in two sentences, introduce Birdlife International, write "IUCN" (not the list) and spell it out; what "latter" refers to is difficult to guess after a first read.

Split, but I'm not sure how to introduce Birdlife in a brief way. Tried with "The bird conservation organisation". FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• (which still required corroboration) – I am not sure what to make of this addition, maybe it can just be deleted, or is there a particular purpose I cannot see?

Removed as redundant in the context. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• In the 1905 article that named the Martinique macaw, Rothschild also listed an Anodorhynchus coeruleus – Did he name A. coeruleus as well, or just listed it?

Named, replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• As many as 13 extinct macaws have been suggested to have lived on the islands until recently. – Is the "until recently" really needed? I am not sure what it wants to tell me.

Removed, was also noted by HF. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• but many never received binomials – You could just write "scientific names", I think there is no need to introduce another highly technical term, "binominals".

Replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• are considered junior synonyms of other species – earlier in the article, you just said "synonym", without specifying "junior". I think you can just drop the "junior" without loosing precision, to keep it simple.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• palaeontological – link?

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• Bouton's 1630s description of the Martinique macaw is reproduced below, translated from French: – But the translation you give is from Rothschild, not your own, right?

Yes, both translations are from Rothschild. Does it need clarification, or? FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• The "Contemporary descriptions" section seems a bit arbitrary and "attached" to the article. Also, this information (the description) would have been good to know much earlier, to make sense of the taxonomic history. I suggest to merge the section with the first paragraph of "Taxonomy".

Not sure; since there is so little info about this bird, it can't really be structured like most other species articles, but people will still scan an article to find a section where they can read a description of it, and this is the closest we have. Personally, I'd want an easy way to find this info that wasn't buried in another section. That said, each of these birds are briefly described under taxonomy either way as "of blue and orange-yellow macaws" and more indirectly with the latter, but I've now added a bit more about its colouration too where it is mentioned under taxonomy as "that described satiny blue and yellow parrots with red tails". FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I personally would still try to merge it and see how it looks, but I leave the decision to you. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• The "Extinct Caribbean relatives" section is a great introductory/background section, but a background section makes most sense at the beginning of the article (to prepare the reader for the main content), not at the end (when we might already have lost the reader as they were not able to make sense of the text)? Maybe it could be the first section in "Taxonomy"?

I see the point, but I'm a bit vary of it, since the article will then start with a big chunk that isn't solely about this species. Maybe a general introductory sentence putting it in the context of many hypothetical parrot species? Then the later section can go in depth. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I re-added and expanded a sentence to the start of taxonomy I had earlier removed: "The Martinique amazon (Amazona martinicana) of the same island was also based solely on a contemporary description, and many supposedly extinct parrot species from the Caribbean islands were named based on such scant evidence." FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok. It was just a suggestion; I will leave that decision to you. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• Very interesting stuff. Hope my suggestions are useful. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

HAL

Staking out my spot. ~ HAL333 23:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

• "Many of these species are now considered dubious because only three are known from physical remains, and there are no extant endemic macaws on the islands today." is a run-on with three independent clauses.

Not sure how to fix this, but tried with a semicolon instead of "because". FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• "Keulemans' hypothetical 1907 restoration of Ara erythrura" - is 'reconstruction' more apt in this context?

They're basically synonyms in this context, but went with reconstruction, as I think that might be more in use in older literature. FunkMonk (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• The initial comma isn't needed in "The American ornithologist James Greenway used the emended spelling Ara martinica in 1958, and suggested ..." and makes it choppy due to the later (appropriate) comma. There are other unneccessary uses of a comma before a conjunction + dependent clause, but I don't want to go overboard here. The second comma in that sentence just renders it a flow issue.

Removed comma, I don't mind if you point out more such issues. FunkMonk (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• Could "were meant to refer to" be shortened to "referred to"?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

These nitpicks are all I got. Nice work. ~ HAL333 18:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Happy to support! ~ HAL333 15:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment Support from Tim riley

Far from my area of expertise and I can't venture to comment on the content, except to say that your statement "Rothschild furthermore claimed that two large and supposedly blue and yellow macaws seen on Jamaica by a Reverend Comard in 1842 must have been this species" seems a little odd, as I can't find mention of the Rev Mr Comard in Rothschild's 1907 book that you cite. Am I missing something?

Strangely, it's in the entry of another bird on page 53 here (within the page range cited): Rothschild's writing was pretty messy and idiosyncratic. He also spelled the name "Coward" while later sources spell it "Comard", which I've followed here (cited to Greenway in the article), as it seems more reliable. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Fine, Tim riley talk 12:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

So far as the prose is concerned:

• the OED admits "so" as a conjunction, but in formal prose it seems to me a touch too informal; to my eye "historic times, so it is impossible" would be better as "historic times, and so it is impossible" or just "historic times, and it is impossible". A matter of personal style, I admit, and I don't press the point.

Tried with "and it is therefore difficult to establish" due to another comment above about "impossible" being too strong. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• I think perhaps "friar" could usefully be blue-linked.

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• Contrariwise, we don't normally blue link sovereign states, and I might lose the one to Jamaica (even though it wasn't a sovereign state at the time you are writing about).

Removed links to Jamaica and Dominica. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• Otherwise the thing that struck me most about the text is the number of nationalities singled out for mention: the British zoologist Walter Rothschild, the French priest Jacques Bouton, the Dutch artist John Gerrard Keulemans, the Italian zoologist Tommaso Salvadori, the Cuban scientist Mario Sánchez Roig, the American ornithologist John T. Zimmer, the American ornithologist James Greenway, the American ornithologists Matthew Williams and David Steadman, the French pastor Charles de Rochefort, the French friar Jean-Baptiste Du Tertre, the British ornithologists Julian P. Hume and Michael Walters, the American ornithologist Charles Wallace Richmond. Is it relevant that Rothschild was British, Bouton French, Greenway American and so on?

I think it's important in that it underlines the international/colonial ties and interest in this subject. If it was an entirely US American subject with only American researchers to present, I wouldn't mention nationalities. But it's a fine line to walk, and I wouldn't rule out removing them if there are more complaints. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. OK. Tim riley talk 12:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

As to bibliographical details:

• Those for Greenway's book seem strange: a book with that title and that ISBN was published in 1967, but by Dover Publications rather than the American Committee for International Wild Life Protection. A copy is available in the Internet Archive: here

Ah, thanks for the top! A lot more handy than flipping through pages all the time, added link to citation. As for the inconsistencies, I guess it's because I have the 1967 edition, and was adding to a citation that was already present. Have updated it to only match my edition. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• You link to Rothschild's 1907 book in the Internet Archive, but not to two other books that are available there: Fuller (1987), Greenway (1967). It isn't compulsory, but it would be a kindness to your readers to do so.

I didn't even know the Internet Archive had so many non-public domain books (usually I link everything that's PD), now linked. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

That's all from me. I have enjoyed this article. Tim riley talk 09:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Happy to support now. As far as I can see the article meets all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 12:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

MSincccc

Lead

• Could the relevant language template be added to the article mainspace?

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• Noel F. R. Snyder and colleagues → Noel F. R. Snyder and his colleagues

MSincccc (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Sure, why not. FunkMonk (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• Some of the references follow th yy/mm/dd format. Consider changing it to dd/mm/yy (since the article follows British English).

I think I got them all. But seems it creates some sort of template issue... FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Bottom line

Support The article meets FAC standards. I've no further suggestions for its prose (except minor stylistic revisions, which I won't bother you with). MSincccc (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Source review

I see that this short article is missing a source review, so I'll perform one. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I am reviewing this article as per this revision.

• There are no uncited paragraphs in the article. All seem to end with a reference.
• The reference style is consistently applied throughout the article.
• There is inconsistency in the style of capitalisation throughout the references. Some use title case, some use sentence case. It's up to you to chose one of them.

generally on Wikipedia, book titles are capitalised, journal articles are not. I have no idea why, but is at least be consistent here. FunkMonk (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Only Ref 3 has its author linked. For the sake of consistency, I'd suggest removing that wikilink.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• There is one inconsistent ISBN. I'd suggest using the Hyphenator to fix this.

I guess you mean Helm, couldn't get your link to work, but used this: FunkMonk (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• All references have pages.
• All references appear to be published by peer reviewed journals and known publishing companies. Ref 1 (IUCN red list) and Ref 10 (Birdlife International) seem to be run by experts. Therefore, I don't have any doubts in the reliability of these references.
  • Is Christopher Helm the Christopher Helm publisher? Is his company also known as Christopher Helm or what? I'm asking because I see that the book was published 3 years after his death.

Looks like it, but can't say I know about the details. FunkMonk (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck:
  • Ref 1 - looks good
  • Ref 2 - looks good
  • Ref 3 - looks good
  • Ref 4 - looks good
  • Ref 5 - looks good
  • Ref 6 - looks good
  • Ref 10 - looks good
  • Ref 11 - "The specific name coeruleus is Latin for "azure-blue"." appears on p113, this should be fixed

Fixed, I think it was left over from when I copied the citation from another article. FunkMonk (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• • Ref 15 - looks good

Pass from me. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by from Jim

Is it worth mentioning that several Caribbean islands have extant endemic or near-endemic Amazona parrots. Just a thought. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding a note about the state of parrotry in the region in general, would that suffice? FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Now I look again, I think this sentence already does what I had in mind (it is not only Amazona parrots but also Aratinga parakeets that were affected): "The Martinique amazon (Amazona martinicana) of the same island was also based solely on a contemporary description, and many supposedly extinct parrot species from the Caribbean islands were named based on such scant evidence." FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Support and comment I've read through again, the only nit-pick is occur on the adjacent mainland might be clearer as occur on the adjacent South American mainland Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2025 (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. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

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

OlifanofmrTennant

Hey I'll take a look at this. Although my only experience with FAC ended with failure and shame so feel free to disregaurd this in its entirety.

• Georgeanne Growingthunder's role is stated to be uncredited in a EFN. The prose does not source this being uncredited. However since the appearance is sourced and the infobox presumably lists the episode as a primary source, it could be a 1+1=2 situation but then its veering into SYNTH problems. So it would be peferred to source the lack of credit in the efn
• Since there is no "Reservation Dogs season 3" article nor is there a "List of Reservation Dogs episodes" (both redirect to Reservation Dogs) could one of the links in the infobox be removed
• I think linking to "wig" and "haircut" is pretty clearly overlinking
• "use elements similar to indie films from the 1990s." Which ones? The article links to a list of films but I'm pretty sure it wasn't Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles which is listed.
• "too much like Yoda" Yoda is named dropped there, I think it should be clarified that Yoda is a fictional Star Wars character and not some Native American myth or obscure post photography term.
• Now this might be a me thing but the image in music appears to be cutting into the following heading, could it be moved up to avoid this.
• Ref 25 lists the source as "A.V. Club" when it should be "The A.V. Club"

Thats what I found ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 13:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: No specific works are named in the source for the indie films comment. Per MOS:IMAGELOC the photo probably shouldn't be moved up. I do believe however, that the overhang should be okay, by taking a look at some similar FA's like this and this to name a few. Everything else has been addressed, thanks for the review! TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Support Olliefant (she/her) 06:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Aoba47

• For this sentence from the lead: (The production team consulted multiple subject matter experts to ensure that the topic was accurately represented.) I'd clarify what is meant by "topic" as the previous sentence brings up two things (American Indian boarding schools and Kiowa language). I think that "topic" is meant to represent both so I would recommend using the plural form of "topics" to better convey that, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
• I'd recommend linking teleplay for this part, (a teleplay that alternates its scenes between two series of events), as I could see some readers not being familiar with this term.
• I am uncertain about the link for the Great Spirit is used in this part, (as well as the events that led to her becoming a spirit), as it comes across a bit like an WP:Easter egg to me. When I clicked the link, I was thinking that it would go to more generic spirit article. I wonder if there is a way to avoid this? I think directly saying the Great Spirit somehow in the prose would help.
• Cultural assimilation of Native Americans and American Indian boarding schools are linked in both the "Plot" and "Production" sections. While duplicate links are now okay (and I have used them as well), these links are in relatively close proximity to each other so I am not sure if they are as useful. I was curious on why these items are linked in both sections?
• Since horror films of the 1970s is linked in the article, I would also link it in the lead for consistency.
• This is more of a clarification question, but I wonder if one of the reasons behind Georgeanne Growingthunder's casting was because she was already in the process of learning the Kiowa language. Was there any discussion about this?
• For the description for Yoda, I wonder if it could be briefly included that he spoke using a backward speech pattern, as that is what makes his way of talking unique and recognizable and it would clarify why this comparison is being made.
• The second paragraph of the "Release and reception" section has a fair bit of repetition with the word "episode". While I understand that is unavoidable to some extent given the topic, I'd recommend adding some variation to keep the prose engaging. For instance, for this sentence, (Paste author Josh Harris ranked the episode as the second-best of the series for its impression on the topic.), I believe "the episode" could be replaced with the episode's title ("Deer Lady"). I think changing even a single instance, like the one above, would help.
• I am uncertain about "later" for this sentence: (He later commented, "There's a cost to being a person, but there's also a cost to being a Deer Lady, and this episode beautifully captures that cost.") To me, "later" implies more that he said it at a later time rather than just later in the review, and I am not sure that including where he put this comment in his review is particularly helpful for readers.

Wonderful job with the article. My comments are rather nitpick-y as I did not see any major issues. I believe that the new infobox image is a stronger choice and has a clearer rationale. I hope that these comments are helpful, and once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure that I have not missed anything. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Aoba47: After a tad more research, I actually swapped the spirit link to the generic one because it's a better fit. I adjusted the two links you mentioned so that one is linked in plot and the other in production. They were initially so soon after one another because it's what DUPLINK defines as a major section, but I feel staggering them makes it less-distracting. The quote you mentioned in your last comment was removed in favor of a more analysis-based statement. Regarding Growingthunder, the exact quote from the source says "Georgeanne Growingthunder, who plays young Deer Lady, comes from a Kiowa family and had already been learning the language, Goulet says. “That was just like an added gift, that we found this incredibly talented and captivating young woman who also had a ground in the language,” she says. “It felt like it was pure strike of lightning in a bottle.”". The "added gift" portion, makes me assume it was discovered after the fact? Everything else has been addressed. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping and the response. I agree with your edits and revisions. Staggering the links is a good idea to me, and "added gift" part does make it clear that Growingthunder's experience with the Kiowa language is a happy coincidence in a sense. I will read through the article later today. I do not imagine that I will find anything, but I want to make sure to do my due diligence as a reviewer. I made a small edit to include a link for object–subject–verb word order for "a backwards speech pattern", as I think that would help readers who are unfamiliar with the concept, but feel free to revert if you disagree with it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

That link is perfectly fine with me, thanks for your time! TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I read through the article a few more times, and it all looks good to me. I do not see anything further to bring up. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Pokelego999

Thanks for the ping! Will review now since this is pretty short and within my usual topic area @TheDoctorWho:

• Deer Woman is hyperlinked twice in the second para of the lead. I get it's two different spellings but only the first is really necessary, and the fictional one's role is already defined in the paragraph.

• The gibberish mention in the last para of the lead is confusing for me since it isn't established earlier and I'm quite confused on what it actually means in the context of the story.

• Could you briefly describe who Bear is in the plot summary?

• "Deer Lady then remembers witnessing graves being dug at the boarding school and assimilating into mainstream culture by learning hymns such as "Jesus Loves Me"," I'd reword since the current wording implies the dug graves are the ones assimilating, when that isn't the case.

• I'd specify the reason for including the different tribe names in parentheses, since it's unclear why they're listed as of right now. I'd assume it's what tribes they are descended from, but it should be spelled out for readers.

• Could you specify what a "split script" is?

• "and her justifications for murder." Current wording implies she becomes this as well as a spirit. Reword this if possible.

• I feel Reception is overly reliant on quotes that aren't really communicating to me clearly the intricacies of the review. For instance, the Atlantic stated that the episode had a "viscerally unnerving style": but what does that mean? Is it viscerally good? Bad? I can't tell if this review is positive or negative, and I can't tell how they actually felt about the episode. I feel the ins and outs of the reviews can be covered in greater detail while still keeping it short.

• "rather than just using general folklore." What does this mean? I assume expanding to a scope outside of the original Deer Lady legend, but it's unclear exactly what this means. I'd clarify if possible.

• "and that it sounded as if it had "been placed into a food processor, chopped up and reassembled at random, and then run through a few audio filters"." Not quite sure why this is here. This is just a description of how it sounded to someone; it doesn't really indicate how they felt or its significance to the episode. I'd axe this and replace it with some commentary.

Overall this is pretty solidly put together, though I feel wording can be patched up in places. Let me know when you've responded to the above, since I feel that after the above is addressed I'd be happy to support it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: Still need to address the tribal affiliations, but wanted to check in and see how the reception section reads now? I tried to remove, or at least reduce, the quotes in some shape and provide a better overview of the reviews. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

"and compared the presence of the nuns to extraterrestrial life from Deer Lady's point of view." I'd clarify this since it could be read as how Deer Lady views extraterrestrial life, instead of comparing the nuns to extraterrestrial life. Otherwise it's looking better. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: These last two have been addressed. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho "and compared Deer Lady's perception of the nuns to be extraterrestrial life" doesn't really make sense grammatically, and I'm a bit confused what it's trying to convey. I think this will need to be reworded again. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: How does it read now? TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho could it be clarified how this view is relevant? (I.e, why the reviewer thought it was important to point out) The current phrasing explains what they're saying but doesn't explain why they're saying it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: I reformatted the sentence about to hopefully clear this up? TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho should be fine. Willing to Support. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Source review by Bgsu98

My source review will follow the same format we use at the FL project. All sources are archived and appear to be properly formatted.

Spot check

• No. 3 – Checks out.
• No. 8 – Checks out.
• No. 11 – Checks out.
• No. 14 – Checks out.
• No. 17 – Checks out.
• No. 22 – Checks out.
• No. 28 – Checks out.
• No. 31 – Checks out.
• No. 36 – Cannot verify since the source requires a subscription.

Source review passed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

36 can be verified using the source archive, if necessary. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Duh, I don't know why that didn't occur to me... Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

History6042

• File:Deer Lady Promo.jpg - the fair use rational is all good.
• File:SXSW-2024-OB7A0195-alih-Sterlin Harjo-crop.jpg - CC BY 4.0 license is good to use.
• File:Kaniehtiio Horn - 22 Chaser at the National Canadian Film Day - 2018 (27693997788) (cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0 license is good to use.
• File:Mali-obomsawin-welcome-to-indian-country.png - CC BY-SA 4.0 license is good to use.
• All images have alt text and captions.
• Image review passes.
• "Indian", "Native American", and "Indigenous" are all used here, should these be clarified in a EFN note that these all mean the same thing?
• Source review, checked sources 6, 18, and 20. All were fine, source review pass. History6042😊 (Contact me) 02:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

  Given the context surrounding the article as a whole, and the individual sentences, I think they're understood to be synonymous here. I'm also not sure about the logistics of that, unless it would just be on the very first mention? I wouldn't want to add this efn to every single use of one of these words. If you think it needs the clarification though, I could probably come up with something. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• All images seem to me to be appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted, except for a lack of alt text for the Mali Obomsawin image. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild: Added the missing alt text! TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2025 (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. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Drive-by comment

The infobox image seems a bit crowded of buildings as I had to look at the other images in the article to tell which building is the subject of the article. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 17:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I found a better image that's less distracting. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 17:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've replaced the lead image. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

MS

Lead

• ...in the Financial District of Lower Manhattan in New York City, New York, U.S.→...in the Financial District of Lower Manhattan in New York City.
  • Done. - EG
• ...was built from 1930 to 1932 as an office building. built from→constructed between
  • Done. - EG

MSincccc (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Architecture

• "The building has five entrances in total."→"The building has five entrances."
• Another entrance on Pearl Street, which was formerly located under the Third Avenue elevated line, is more simply designed and leads to a lobby in the lower level.
  • Done. - EG
  • “in the lower level” → “on the lower level” for standard preposition use
    • Done. - EG
• The western entrances on Pine and Cedar Streets are located near the western end of the building and are two stories tall.
  • “are located” → “are”; “located” adds no value.
    • Done. - EG

MSincccc (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Architecture (continued)

• in conjunction with height→in relation to their height
  • Done. - EG
• thus designed →therefore designed
  • Done. - EG

MSincccc (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Could we link to the article Jazz Age (on its first mention) and that of The New York Times atleast once?

• Done. - EG

• "available during that era"→"available at the time"
  • Done. - EG
• "The basement also included"→"It also included"
  • Avoid repetition of "the basement" in consecutive sentences.
    • I reworded it a different way. - EG
• Doherty ultimately never lived in the space. Doherty→He
  • Done. - EG
• Could we link to the article Crown Shy?
  • Done. (Incidentally, this article didn't exist when I first started expanding 70 Pine several years ago.) - EG
• “Doherty’s bed was designed on a motorized platform” → “Doherty’s bed was mounted on a motorized platform”
  • "Mounted on" is the correct idiom.
    • Done. - EG
• “tenants and Cities Services employees” → “Cities Service employees”
  • The correct company name is Cities Service.
    • Done. - EG
• “At the 16th floor” → “On the 16th floor”
  • Done. - EG

Impact

• Readers might confuse The Times with The Times, a British newspaper.
  • Fixed. - EG
• Another Times critic→James Vescovi (optional)
  • Done. - EG

MSincccc (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments MSincccc. I've addressed them all now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

History

• 'The firm of Clinton & Russell"→"Clinton & Russell"
  • Done. - EG
• "reported on April 1931"→"reported in April 1931"
  • Done. - EG
• To date, workers had been on the project for 119,000 hours without any major accidents.
  • Consider changing "to date" since it implies present-day, which doesn’t fit a historical account. “Up to that point” or “By then” might work.
    • Good point, I've done that. - EG
• "and WGYN continued to broadcast from there until May 1950→"and continued to broadcast from there until May 1950"
  • Done. - EG
• World War II is linked on its third mention but not on its first two.
  • Removed as a MOS:OVERLINK. - EG

MSincccc (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Additional comment

• These pillars, each 14 feet (4.3 m), may have been designed by Rene Paul Chambellan and were fairly accurate in their detailing. Is it unclear whether Chambellan designed the pillars or not?
  • Yes, the source says: "Rene P(aul) Chambellan (1893-1958), who designed the figurative reliefs on the aluminum elevator doors in the first floor lobby, was a celebrated architectural modeler and may have played a role in each sculpture’s design." - EG

Overall, I found the prose comprehensive and engaging. I have no further suggestions.

MSincccc (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again MSincccc. I've responded to all of the above. Epicgenius (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Fine, then. I'm at a support. MSincccc (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Support from ZKang123

Lead:

• A little bit of a personal peeve, but each of the three lead paragraphs begin with "70 Pine Street". I recommend changing like an instance (either the second or third paragraph) from "70 Pine Street" to "The building" for a bit of variety
  • Done. - EG
• The structure was originally named for its original tenant "Originally" and "original" is a bit repetitive. I might say the first tenant.
  • Rephrased. - EG
• and was Lower Manhattan's tallest building and the world's third-tallest building upon its completion. I assume these accolades applied when it was completed but superseded since. Might specify when the building was completed for a bit of clarity
  • This is already mentioned in one of the preceding sentences: "70 Pine Street was constructed between 1930 and 1932 as an office building". - EG
    • I mean, my reasoning is that while we can assume the building's construction was completed in 1932, maybe the opening would be a bit later. But it's fine.

Architecture

• The roof is 850 feet (260 m) tall,[9][2] while the top story is 800 feet (240 m) high I find this a bit confusing: How can a roof and the top story be that tall? Unless the roof and the top floor is at that height, not that it measured that tall.
  • Good point regarding the roof - it is 850 feet high (location above ground), not 850 feet tall (from ground to pinnacle). "The top story is 800 feet high" is correct as it refers to the location above ground, not the height from the ground to the top. - EG
• The building exceeded 40 Wall Street, the Manhattan Company's building, by 25 feet (7.6 m) to be Lower Manhattan's tallest building. – The wording here is a bit awkward. Might suggest rewriting: The building surpassed the Manhattan Company's 40 Wall Street by 25 feet (7.6 m), becoming the tallest structure in Lower Manhattan.
  • Done. - EG
• Citation 2 does not support this chunk: It was the last skyscraper to be built in Lower Manhattan prior to World War II and was the tallest building in Lower Manhattan until the 1970s, when the World Trade Center was completed. With the collapse of the World Trade Center in the September 11 attacks, it regained the status of the tallest Lower Manhattan building until the completion of the new 4 World Trade Center in 2013. Also I might find this is a bit of trivial fluff, especially when it talked about how it "regained" that status.
  • Removed. You're correct that this is trivial, and in any case it was added without any sources 15 years ago; I just forgot to remove it. - EG
• the setbacks are placed at regular intervals Shouldn't it be "were" since they were built/placed in the past?
  • Yeah. Usually, the present tense would be appropriate since the setbacks still exist, but in this case the sentence is talking about something that happened during the construction process, not the present-day condition of the building. - EG
• To maximize rentable space while also complying with the 1916 Zoning Resolution – "also" is redundant
  • Removed. - EG

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the initial feedback ZKang123. I've responded to the comments you've raised so far. Epicgenius (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Continued (Architecture):

• Above the 67th-floor observation deck is the building's spire, composed of a glass lantern rising 27 feet (8.2 m), topped by a stainless steel pinnacle extending another 97 feet (30 m) – ..., composed of a glass lantern rising 27 feet (8.2 m) and topped by a stainless steel pinnacle extending another 97 feet (30 m)
• The spire rises 124 feet (38 m)... I felt this part should be mentioned earlier before specifying the spire's composition
• Another entrance on Pearl Street, which was formerly located under the Third Avenue elevated line, is more simply designed – ..., has a more simple design
• All of these streets are narrower than the typical street in Manhattan I was initially confused what streets then I figured it must refer to the adjoining streets of the building. I would just say "adjoining streets" (as described from the source) given that's like a common term.
• These pillars, each 14 feet (4.3 m) Height or length?

Would continue on the interior.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done these as well. I swapped the order of the phrase "glass lantern" phrase and the "spire rises 124 feet" sentence. The pillar measurements refer to the height. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Continued (Architecture):

• Inside each entrance were retail spaces that faced the first-floor lobby Are there still retail spaces to this day?
  • Yes. I've clarified this. - EG
• Until the early 2000s, these retail spaces contained such stores as "a drugstore, a bookstore, a tobacconist and a telegraph office" – Since also these are quoted, I might attribute According to a New York Times article in 2015, these retail spaces housed "a drugstore, bookstore, tobacconist, and telegraph office" until the early 2000s.
  • Done. - EG
• as well as Cities Service's logo – as well as the Cities Service's logo
  • This would be grammatically incorrect, so I changed to "as the Cities Service logo". - EG
• and the northernmost west–east corridor. – Wouldn't east–west be more natural?
  • Done. - EG
• The fourth floor contained a clinic for people who worked in the building – A clinic at the fourth floor served the workers of the building
  • Done. - EG
• Crown Shy, a 120-seat restaurant, opened on the ground floor as well; it is an à la carte eatery, where dishes are ordered individually Is it kind of important to say this is an à la carte eatery?
  • Removed. - EG
• There are 24 elevators in total... Might rewrite The building has 24 elevators...
  • Done. - EG
• Each elevator door is a double-leaf door made of aluminum... – Each elevator is fitted with double-leaf aluminum doors. Or is it aluminum double-leaf?
  • These would be double-leaf doors (which means that the doors slide closed toward the middle of the elevator-door opening). It can be contrasted with a single-leaf door, which slides closed from one side of the opening to the other side. As for the material, they are made of aluminum, so I don't know if this would benefit from being changed. - EG
    • Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, I got rid of the repetition and changed it to "Each elevator has a double-leaf aluminum door with diamond and trefoil patterns cast in one piece". - EG
• with diamond and trefoil patterns, which were cast in one piece – with diamond and trefoil patterns cast in one piece
  • Done. - EG
• Because of 70 Pine Street's small lot size and the setbacks that make the upper floors even smaller... – Because of the limited lot size of 70 Pine Street and the setbacks that further reduce the floor area on the upper levels...
  • Done. - EG
• it would have been unprofitable under normal building practices if it were taller than 48 stories what does the second "it" refer to? To the building?
  • Yes. I've fixed it. - EG
• The Cedar Street portion of the first-floor lobby contained elevator banks that only served the building's lower floors, while the Pine Street portion contained elevators that served higher floors. Firstly, what are elevator "banks"?
  • "Elevator banks" refers to a group of (usually) adjacent elevators in a specific part of the building that serve the same floors. One bank of elevators serves the lower stories, and the other serves the upper stories. - EG
• The bridge was destroyed in 1975 when the original 60 Wall Street building was demolished to make way for the current, larger building. – The bridge was demolished in 1975 along with the original 60 Wall Street building to make way for the construction of the current, larger structure.
  • Done with slightly different wording. - EG

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again Kang. I've fixed or addressed all of these. Epicgenius (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Found no other issues for the design. So I shall continue to the history.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

History:

• Why does as a "light, heat, and power" firm need to be in quotes
  • I changed it to "utility firm". - EG
• The New York City Department of Buildings rejected the proposed structure on Wall Street. – I assume this rejected both proposals by Clinton & Russell?
  • Yes. I've changed it. - EG
• The Pine Street Realty Company then started buying land across Pine Street. when, exactly? If sources state
  • It was in January 1929, but that wasn't stated until the third sentence, so I rearranged it. - EG
• at a total cost of $2 million I need today's inflated value. Also similar for other instances of currency values before the 80s.
  • Done. - EG
• spoke about his findings at the Engineers' Club. Might rewrite to shared his findings
  • Done. - EG
• Coutrolas's building was demolished anyway Not sure about the use of "anyway" here
  • Done. - EG
• described at the time as "financially unique among large New York office buildings" By who?
  • I added that this was attributed to Cities Service. - EG
• Up to that point, workers had been on the project for 119,000 hours without any major accidents Would suggest removing "Up to that point" because it's kind of repeating " At the time" in the previous sentence.
  • Done. - EG
• using then-new "moonbeam" technology I was wondering if there's more details of this technology and trying to find any article of it, though there doesn't seem to be any. Also "then-new" is quite an odd oxymoron here, though I understand it's to describe a technology considered "new" at the time
  • I removed it, since the exact details of the announcement aren't really that important. - EG
• One portion of 70 Pine Street was separately owned from the rest of the building - A section of 70 Pine Street was under separate ownership
  • Done. - EG
• To repay the federal government, AIG decided to sell its buildings... it had reached an agreement to sell the building. There's a repetition of "sell the building" here kinda. I might suggest rewriting the first one to "sell its properties", but also, I'm not too particular if you wish to keep
  • Good idea. I have reworded it. - EG
• "late-2000s recession" Isn't this still the 2008 recession?
  • Yes. Someone changed it after the fact, so I have reworded this. - EG
• Unlike the top floors of other converted residential buildings, which were generally turned into penthouse apartments, Rose decided to add amenities to the top floors of 70 Pine Street. – Unlike other converted residential buildings where the top floors were typically transformed into penthouse apartments, Rose decided to dedicate the upper levels of 70 Pine Street to amenities instead.
  • Done. - EG
• Space in 70 Pine Street's lobby and upper floors was originally set to contain restaurants by April Bloomfield and Ken Friedman, who withdrew from the project in July 2016 – The lobby and upper floors of the building were initially slated to house restaurants by April Bloomfield and Ken Friedman, but the duo withdrew from the project in July 2016.
  • Done. - EG
• Ultimately, the upper-floor restaurant spaces hosted James Kent and Jeff Katz's restaurant Crown Shy, which opened in 2019 – Remove "restaurant spaces" cos it's also clear it's now for a restaurant.
  • Done. - EG

I don't have other issues for this article.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@ZKang123: Thanks for these comments. I've addressed them all now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Satisfied with the changes. Support.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

750h

Reviewing this. 750h+ 12:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

lead

• Designed by the firm of Clinton & Russell, Holton & George in the ==> "Designed by the architectural firm Clinton & Russell, Holton & George in the"
  • Done. - EG
• It was Lower Manhattan's tallest building and the world's third-tallest building upon its completion. ==> "Upon completion, it was the tallest building in Lower Manhattan and the third tallest in the world."
  • Done. - EG
• The interior features included escalators at the base is "included" part of "escalators" or is this grammatically incorrect
  • "Features" is used as a noun here, not a verb. However, I've reworded this. - EG
• converted to residential use in 2016 ==> "converted for residential use in 2016"
  • Done. - EG

site

• nothing wrong here.

architecture

• Like its contemporaries, 70 Pine Street has a Gothic-like, spire-topped appearance. can we specify "contemporaries"? like say something like "Like all early 20th-century skyscrapers" or just anything like that
  • Actually, I just removed it as it was technically not fully correct. Many NYC skyscrapers at the time were actually designed in the Art Deco style, while only a relatively small number of buildings still used the Gothic style, like the American Radiator Building. - EG
• The setbacks on the northern and southern elevations and those on the western and eastern elevations alternate with each other. bit repetitive. what about "The setbacks alternate between the north–south and east–west elevations, creating a balanced and dynamic profile."
  • Done. - EG
• The spire had a beacon, which was described as being "visible for 200 miles at sea and inland" should it be stated who said this?
  • Done. - EG

i'll continue this later. 750h+ 14:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC) continuing on:

• Each setback is surrounded by a parapet with a limestone coping. ==> "A parapet with a limestone coping surrounds each setback." (active voice)
  • Done. - EG
• has a more simple design and leads ==> "has a simpler design and leads"
  • Done. - EG
• both arches are divided by a limestone pillar ==> "each arch is divided by a limestone pillar"
  • Done. - EG
• The white plaster ceiling is supported by large, jagged corbels. ==> "Large, jagged corbels support the white plaster ceiling."
  • Done. - EG
• The suite contained a gym and a ==> "The suite included a gym and a" ("contain" is used in the previous sentence)
  • Done. - EG
• The bridge was destroyed in 1975, along the original 60 Wall Street building should it be "along with the original 60 Wall Street.."
  • Done. - EG
• the basement through sixth floors to evacuate within 10 i don't think this is correct. i think it should be "through six floors" or "through the sixth floor".
  • I changed this to "the basement through the sixth floor". - EG

history

• 60 Wall Street in December 1924 with the aim of expanding the structure. ==> "60 Wall Street in December 1924 to expand the structure."
  • Done. - EG
• into 70 Pine Street prior to its official dedication ==> " into 70 Pine Street before its official dedication"
  • Done. - EG

impact

• No problems here.

Thanks for the article @Epicgenius: excellent as always! I do have an ongoing FAC if you'd like to take a look! thanks and best, 750h+ 07:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@750h+: Thanks for the review. I've addressed all of your comments now, and sure, I can take a look at your FAC when I have time later. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Support. 750h+ 14:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

SC

Comments to follow soonish - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

• An extensive lighting system highlighted the building's features at night": does it no longer exist?
• "Above the doors were four tiers of sash windows": again, are they no longer?
• "(80,360.0 m2)": do we need the ".0"?
• a tobacconist and a telegraph office": no serial comma?
• "security systems available during that time": "at that time seems more natural to me, but I'll leave it to you
• "charged 50 cents for admission": worth thinking about an inflation conversion?
• six "express" elevators: Any need for the scare quotes? Express elevator seems like normal terminology

Done to the start of Other features; more to follow - SchroCat (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the initial comments SC. I've implemented all of the changes you've suggested, as I don't have any rebuttals for these. As to your first two points, both of these features still exist. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Final comments:

• Inflation note 1 is showing an error message
• Is there a reason the sources for the inflation are showing in the notes rather than the sources?
• "original partners had died": just "original partners died"?
• "63 stories, including double-decker elevators due to the lot's small size, and it would cost $7 million": I'm not sure you need "including double-decker elevators due to the lot's small size", as it's a repeat of the information we've already been told

That's my lot. Another beautifully written piece. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @SC, I really appreciate it. I've moved the inflation footnotes, fixed the inflation template, and made these two other corrections. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support - SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Source review: Pass

To follow - SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Formatting: all OK (I made a couple of minor corrections to speed things up). More to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Spot checks on FNs 2, 3, 18, 22 42 and 44 all supported the information they claimed, with no concerns on close paraphrasing etc
• Range and reliability: All sources appear to be from reliable sources, as far as I can tell. I've run additional searches to find any missed sources, but none come up.
• Source review passed. - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Image review

I'll conduct an image review after I get back from work. Hog Farm _Talk 19:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

File:American International Building3 (cropped).JPG - OK, photo is cc-by-sa 3.0 and there is freedom of panorama for buildings in the US

File:American International Building (feb 2013) straighten.jpg - OK, photo is cc-by-sa 4.0 and there is freedom of panorama for buildings in the US

File:Citiesservicemodel.jpg - is this part of the building or a stand-alone mode/sculpture?

File:OHNY 70 Pine Street 3.jpg - OK, photograph is cc-by-sa 4.0 and there is freedom of panorama for public spaces in building interiors in the US

File:AIG New York building at the golden hour.jpg - OK, photograph is cc-by-sa 2.0, flickr source link works, and there is freedom of panorama for buildings in the US

File:70 PINE exteriors2.jpg - OK, photograph is cc-by-sa 4.0 and there is freedom of panorama for buildings in the US

File:NYC Manhattan 1938 Franz Grasser.jpg - needs a tag for copyright status in the United States

File:Downtown skyscrapers from East River pier. New York.jpg - what's the copyright status of the original image? The cc 2.0 license wouldn't apply to the original creation of the work in 1941

File:70 Pine Street under renovation 2014.JPG - OK, photograph is cc-by-sa 4.0 and there is freedom of panorama for buildings in the United States

Hog Farm _Talk 23:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review @HF. In response to your queries:

• File:Citiesservicemodel.jpg - This is part of the building's facade.

• My understanding is that this should be fine then, as this would be part of the freedom of panorama for the building. Hog Farm _Talk 01:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• File:NYC Manhattan 1938 Franz Grasser.jpg - I've added a copyright tag for the building itself, in addition to adjusting the tag according to the original image.

• I think this should be good, although I may have bitten off more than I can chew with evaluating the licensing on this one. Hog Farm _Talk 01:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• File:Downtown skyscrapers from East River pier. New York.jpg - I've removed this for now.

– Epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2025 (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. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Support from HAL

• "before Britain had developed a hydrogen bomb, which it was hoped would be achieved in 1957" --> something more concise like "before Britain had developed a hydrogen bomb, which it was hoped to achieve in 1957" or "to complete in 1957", etc.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• "type of nuclear device in which" - is "to which" more appropriate?

  "in which" is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• "thus increasing the rate of fission and therefore the yield" - I am a fan of the occasional "thus" but I find it a bit clunky to have "thus" and "therefore" in the same clause.

  Deleted "thus". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• The caption "The sloop HMAS Warrego carried out a hydrographic survey of the Montebello Islands" needs a full stop. I also suggest the slightly more concise "Warrego conducted". There's the same issue with the following two captions as well.

  Added full stops. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• "but the boosting effect of the lithium deuteride had been negligible because the process had not been fully understood" - How was it not fully understood?

  Going beyond the source here, so deleted the final clause. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• "British official historian, Lorna Arnold" Official in what regard? Was she associated with a specific department?

  An official historian is one engaged by the government to write history, and is given access to all the documents (which may not be declassified for many years). Arnold was the historian at the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• What's the rational between the yellow headers in the table? I might understand if it was purely alternating, but yield is skipped.

  The table was generated by another editor with a bot. I may have deleted an unnecessary column. Adjusted the colouring. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

That's all. Solid work. ~ HAL333 18:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Happy to support. ~ HAL333 23:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Shape: A pyramid-shaped obelisk ... Those are two mutually exclusive shapes, in my mind. "Pyramid-topped obelisk" I can envision.

  I fear we shall never be in concord about this. Deleted "pyramid-shaped" and linked obelisk. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Define acronym: They were augmented by RAN vessels, designated ... I'm guessing Royal Australian Navy, but other readers may benefit from the acronym being defined here or earlier (I looked but could not find it defined above)

  It is there in the Preparations section. "It was agreed that a Royal Australian Navy (RAN) frigate would act as a weather ship for the test series." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Clarify ...of works to schedule a scientific rehearsal for 27 April. A second scientific rehearsal was held on.... I've never heard the term "scientific rehearsal" before. "Dress" is about the only modifier before "rehearsal" that will be familiar to readers, I think. Do the sources define what it is? I'm guessing some kind of partial rehearsal that omits .... what?

  I have added a brief explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Plainer wording: Because fallout was detected over northern Australia by monitoring stations, in the light of Beale's announcement that G2 would be smaller than G1, an impression was generated that something had gone horribly wrong. That is a tough sentence to parse :-) Both "Because fallout .." and "in light of Beales" are reasons. Which one of the two (or both?) casued the "impression" to be "generated". Maybe The fallout detected over northern Australia by monitoring stations caused Beale to decide to make G2 smaller than G1. This change in plans generated the impression among [who?] that something had gone horribly wrong.

  Re-worded: "Beale had announced that the G2 test was going to be smaller than G1, so when fallout was detected over northern Australia by monitoring stations, newspapers reported something must have gone horribly wrong." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Alphabetize categories? Not sure if that is required for FA or not. When there are more than 10 or so categories, it does help readers hunt for categories. But this article only has 5 cats, so maybe not important.

  MOS:CATORDER: "Beyond that, the order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first."

• I ran the "Show Ref Check" tool, and it flagged about six sources as "Missing archive link", but I checked one of them, and it had an "access-date" field, so I'm not sure why there is no archive link yet. Maybe the bot hasn't come around the the article yet.

• I don't think it adds them when the URL is not dead (yet). I ran the IABot to add them manually. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Summary Table: I like it: very useful presentation of data. I wish more articles had tables like that (vs 100% prose).

  All the nuclear test articles have them. Another user generated them with a bot.

• Clarify In fact, since Narvik had arrived in March, not a single day had been suitable. Good weather conditions alone were insufficient because the meteorologists had to accurately forecast them. That might be a bit confusing to some readers. Maybe The tests could only proceed on days when meteorologists forecast good weather and the weather was actually good. Since Narvik had arrived in March, no day had met both conditions (although several days were good, they were not forecast to be good). Or something like that.

  Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• InfoBox: Having two images (movie & map) at the top of the InfoBox will push important InfoBox text (country, etc) way down, especially on smaller devices. Consider moving one of the two (map or movie) down to bottom of InfoBox, or just below the InfoBox, or even lower in the article. Not a show-stopper for FA, just a suggestion.

  I considered removing the map below the infobox, but this would not address this concern. Moving the map down isn't an option. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Was the promise kept? ... but promised that the yield of neither test would exceed two and a half times that of the Operation Hurricane test. After reading that sentence, EVERY reader will want to know if the promised limit was respected. Even if it is stated later in this article, can you add a footnote to this sentence that states something like: "The yields of G1 and G2 were less than 2.5 times the Hurricane test" or conversely "The yields of G1 and G2 vastly exceeded 2.5x the yield of the Hurricane test" ? Even if readers have the time to search for the answer, that kind of detail is hard to locate in an article. A footnote here will make many readers happy.

  It's complicated. As the article (and the lead) relates, the limit was changed, and there were unsubstantiated allegations that the yield was higher than reported. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• More precise wording The second test in the series, G2, was the largest ever conducted in Australia. Some readers may think that means "... was the largest test at the time (but bigger tests came later)". Consider The second test in the series, G2, remains the largest ever conducted in Australia.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Define/clarify: In thinking about thermonuclear designs, the British scientists ... Many reader will not know that "thermonuclear " in this context is a synonym for "hydrogen bomb" (used earlier in the article). Consider helping the reader make the connection.

  Not quite sure how to do this. Added "(thermonuclear)" after the previous mention of the hydrogen bomb. There are some nuances here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• More encyclopedic wording? In thinking about thermonuclear designs, the British scientists at the ... The first phrase "In thinking about.." is a bit vulgar/idiomatic. Maybe When considering thermonuclear designs, the British scientists at the ...

• Then we will have "considered" twice in the one sentence, which will read awkwardly. Changed to "contemplating". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• That's all I got. Great article!! Glad to hear the wildlife returned. Noleander (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Support. Noleander (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Coord note

This nomination has been stalled without additional comments for a month; unless there's significant action in the next few days it's liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

HF

I will review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 20:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• "The United States Air Force (USAF) provided a pair of C-118 Liftmasters to collect radioactive samples" - do any of the sources give any additional detail as to the rationale/involvement of this, given that the US at the time was trying to exit nuclear assistance with the UK?

  The USAF wanted to monitor the British tests with their own aircraft in order to practice their techniques for monitoring Soviet ones. Added this to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

• "Kainikara, Sanu; Burns, David, eds. (2016). "RAAF Involvement in Nuclear Testing" (PDF). Pathfinder. 7 (232). Air Power Development Centre: 145–148. ISSN 1836-7712. Retrieved 5 April 2020." - source link for me does not work but does. Is this an actual link migration or just certain content/servers not being accessible from a computer in the mainland US?

  Migration. I have updated the link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• "There was a cyclone three days later" - is this particularly relevant? A lot of the stuff for Mosaic doesn't seem to have arrived by 5 March, and this doesn't seem to have affected the test any

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• "There had been protests in Perth at the test series," - is OK in Australian English? I'm reading this as the protests were being aimed against the test series, but this phrasing for that doesn't make a whole lot of sense in AmEng

  I have re-worded it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• "without exceeding the planned 80 kilotonnes of TNT (330 TJ) limit agreed to with the AWTSC, and one of 100 kilotonnes of TNT (420 TJ) was used for safety purposes" - this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, although this may be my lack of familiarity with nuclear weapons. If the limit was 80 kiltonnes of TNT, why was something of 100 kilotonnes of TNT used for safety?

  To provide an extra margin. I have re-worded this slightly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• " Since Narvik had arrived in March, not a single day had been suitable. " is awkward with the latter half of "Since Narvik had arrived in March, no day had met both conditions; although several days were suitable, they had not been forecast to be."; I'd remove the former and keep the latter

  Deleted as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• "The island remained a prohibited area until 1992" - I'm struggling to find this on the live or archive version of the website used as a citation but I might just be missing where it is? I'm also struggling to find the stuff about the animal relocation/eradication

  The site has changed. Added some new references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

This seems to me to be in fairly good shape, although I don't know enough about the specific subject matter of British nuclear testing in Australia to be able to identify any hidden neutrality or selective source use issues. Hog Farm _Talk 01:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: - Anything yet on that first comment? Hog Farm _Talk 14:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

It took a bit of finding. Lots of sources noted the presence, but I eventually located the rationale. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Supporting Hog Farm _Talk 20:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Graham Beards

Could we say what is meant by "shots" and what "film badges" are? Also, I would have liked to have learnt more about the origins and significance of the cats and rats, without having to go to the citation. Graham Beards (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Added links to shot and what film badge. Added information about the origin of the cats and rats. There's been a lot of shipwrecks in the Montebello Islands; the first was recorded in 1622. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Support Graham Beards (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Is it just the website not being searchable, or why does #22 not mention cable? #26 is not paywalled. What does #50 support? #63 seems to have a stray }. #68 is broken. Sources seem consistently formatted and reliable, although I can't speak about any NPOV aspects. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

• fn 22: Arnold and Smith say that Eden's message was a cable. I assumed that Menzies response was the same, and it probably was, but I have switched to a more neutral wording, hewing to the newspaper source. The primary source is in NAA A646 R084/001 and I could check it if you feel that would be worthwhile. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
• Removed |url-access=subscription from fn 26
• fn 50 says: "Mr. Beale announced that a smaller device would be detonated in a few weeks" which helps support "Beale had announced that the G2 test was going to be smaller than G1"
• Removed stray } from fn 63
• Fn 68 seems to have moved (in the last two weeks!) Updated, although it could be that the new link is an error

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey Jo-Jo Eumerus, does Hawkeye's response fully address your concerns? FrB.TG (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2025 (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. FrB.TG (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

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

UC

Moving to Support. I think the spotchecks here would be an interesting topic for further discussion later, but my view so far is that they haven't thrown up anything major, and the minor concerns raised have been fixed: while I don't doubt that further digging would continue in a similar vein, I don't think it's likely that a serious worry is lurking beneath the surface which would cast the article's FA status into doubt. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

This is impressive indeed. Some nitpicky comments follow -- I'm not at all qualified to pronounce on the history.

• calling for "malice toward none; with charity for all" in his second inaugural address.: with the semicolon, this is slgihtly ungrammatical. Could do "malice toward none" with "charity for all"? However, that starts to look like scare quotes, so this might be an acceptable sacrifice.

Many of the sources for quoting this Inaugural take liberties in including or excluding the punctuation used here. For example, the National Park Service seem to exclude punctuation, while Bartleby's seems to include it. Preferences seem to vary. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Do any of those use a comma? That would solve it nicely. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Some sources prefer commas; Collected Writings of Abr. Lincoln seems to prefer the semicolons. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I've reworded this to omit the quote. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• There are a couple of quotations which need to be attributed intext, per MOS:QUOTE: see They settled in an "unbroken forest" in Little Pigeon Creek Community, Indiana. (and here consider MOS:QUOTEPOV) and Thomas and Nancy were members of a Separate Baptist Church, which "condemned profanity, intoxication, gossip, horse racing, and dancing." Most of its members opposed slavery. (to which the same may apply).

Its in Donald, p24; I'll need to confirm. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Its referring to the 'Separate Baptists' as a group who opposed these types of conduct. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Right -- under the MoS, we need to say that these are Donald's words in the text, not just in the footnote. On the other hand, I think there's a strong argument, especially in the case of the forest, to just paraphrase. I don't think we'd lose much by saying that the Separate Baptists were quite straight-laced people, with religious prohibitions against all of those things. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I have done some paraphrasing and attributing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• When Lincoln was a teen, his "father grew more and more to depend on him for the 'farming, grubbing, hoeing, making fences' necessary to keep the family afloat: I think teenager is better than teen in formal writing, though this may be my antediluvian British sensibilities. The quote, however, certainly needs attribution on two levels -- I would be tempted to paraphrase the first but be clear who said "farming, grubbing" etc -- was it Lincoln Sr.?

Its in Donald, p24 and p32; I'll need to confirm. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The phrase does not appear in Donald, however, a previous editor may have found it on an anonymous web search. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

If we can't attribute the quote at all, it should be reworked into prose, assuming that the facts are verifiable by our sources. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

It's supported by Donald; I've rephrased. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• another milk sickness outbreak: hyphenate as a compound modifier. I must admit I don't totally understand this -- our article says that milk sickness is caused by drinking milk from a cow that has eaten a poisonous plant -- so presumably doesn't break out in the same way as e.g. flu?

It is a toxin which dairy cows ingest while feeding; the poison (toxin) then can be fatal. Wikipedia linked article for this does not hyphenate as its preference. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

You don't hyphenate "she suffered from milk sickness", but you do hyphenate "there was a milk-sickness outbreak" -- this is a standard if not well-known rule of English grammar. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Hyphenated. The etiology was not understood at the time; settlers considered it analogous to infectious diseases like cholera. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense. Possibly a bit too far into the weeds to EFN it, but I can see the argument. We've explicitly phrased this as a fear: I don't think we necessarily need to gloss e.g. "fearing that she may be a witch" with an EFN saying that witches don't exist. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Abraham became increasingly distant from Thomas, in part due to his father's lack of interest in education; he would later refuse to attend his father's deathbed or funeral: is it worth giving a sense of how much later this was?

His father dies in 1851; this was a life-long issue for Lincoln. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Could we give Ann Rutledge a brief introduction -- how old was she, for example? How did she die?

Born in Kentucky, like Lincoln. Added. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

For clarity, when I'm asking a question here, I'm doing so on behalf of the reader -- I'm looking for the answer to be clarified in the text (or a reason why we shouldn't clarify it there), rather than necessarily for you to inform me here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Added. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Suggest moving the link on "new homestead" to cover the "a", following the MoS guidance (I forget where) for similar piped links.

Indefinite article added. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• the leader of ruffians known as the Clary's Grove boys: needs a group of ruffians or similar.

Added. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Pace the eponymous article, "Lincoln–Berry General Store" should have an endash, not a hyphen ("Lincoln and Berry", per MOS:DASH).

Ndash added. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• I think it would be helpful to set out briefly what a Whig was on first mention. Did Lincoln declare any political positions in his first, unsuccessful, campaign?

He was a supported of Henry Clay as a prominent Whig of that time period. Added to text. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Right, but I don't think that quite answers the question -- what did Whigs believe in? Did Lincoln support him because he was a Whig -- which in turn raises the question of why Lincoln was a Whig rather than anything else? We do explain this a bit later on.

Rearrange sentence order; state relation to Clay toward top of paragraph. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Why not bring this bit up to the first mention of the Whigs -- Their party favored economic modernization in banking, tariffs to fund internal improvements such as railroads, and urbanization? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

and the part about Lincoln describing himself as "an old line Whig, a disciple of Henry Clay" LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Both added to top of section there. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Nice comments. I'll see if the Donald citations are informative for one or two of these items. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Let's do a few more:

• Lincoln denounced the "mobocratic spirit ... now abroad in the land", indirectly attacking Stephen Douglas, the Democratic Party, and anti-abolitionism: I think we need to explain the connection here.

Rephrased. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• though the duel ultimately did not take place, "the affair embarrassed Lincoln terribly".: another quotation that needs to be paraphrased or attributed. I would strongly recommend a thorough pass-through for these.

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I am still seeing a few in the early sections:

• In his Springfield practice, Lincoln handled "virtually every kind of business that could come before a prairie lawyer".
• He partnered for several years with Stephen T. Logan and, in 1844, began his practice with William Herndon, a "studious young man".
• He insisted that morality required opposition to slavery and rejected any "groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong".: here I assume we're quoting Lincoln, but should, at least in the footnote, clarify when and in what context he he said or wrote this. Ditto, later, Lincoln's philosophy on court nominations was that "we cannot ask a man what he will do, and if we should, and he should answer us, we should despise him for it. Therefore we must take a man whose opinions are known..

There are two more in the section on his appearance. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Lincoln not only pulled off his strategy of gaining the nomination in 1846, but also won the election: pulled off is a bit informal, and this is hardly a strategy -- we just mean that he got what he wanted, surely? It was hardly some strategic masterplan to fail to get it in 1843, at least as we've presented it.

Rephrased. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• dropped the bill when it eluded Whig support: eluded is a curious metaphor here, and in any case I think MOS:IDIOM applies -- failed to attract support from the wider Whig party? After all, it had at least two Whigs supporting it.

Amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Lincoln spoke against the Mexican–American War: a date would help here.

Dates for war added: (April 25, 1846 – February 2, 1848). ErnestKrause (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• He supported the Wilmot Proviso: ditto.

Added. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Lincoln emphasized his opposition to Polk by drafting and introducing his Spot Resolutions.: these are lc in the article by the same name. It might help to use the name of "spot" after we've explained the significance of the "spot" in question.

Current text states it as: "Polk insisted that Mexican soldiers had begun the war by "invading the territory of the State of Texas ... and shedding the blood of our citizens on our own soil"; Lincoln demanded that Polk tell Congress the exact spot, "implying that this spot was actually Mexican soil". His approach cost Lincoln political support in his district, and newspapers derisively nicknamed him "spotty Lincoln"", in 1847. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Reordered. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• appointed Commissioner of the United States General Land Office: lc commissioner per the ever-fun MOS:PEOPLETITLES.

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• As a riverboat man: I'm a bit lost here. In what sense was Lincoln a "riverboat man"?

Reword with his patent in riverboats first, followed by his law case preferences. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Lincoln demanded that Polk tell Congress the exact spot, "implying that this spot was actually Mexican soil".: I'm sorry to keep beating this drum, but here it sounds like Lincoln said these words; they're MacPherson's, I think.

I'll take another look at it. Lincoln's situation appears to have resulted from what he thought was a rhetorical flourish which the press did not like. I'll try to amend it. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

This has been reworded. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• From 1853 to 1860, one of his largest clients was the Illinois Central Railroad.: what exactly do we mean by "one of his largest"? Do we mean that it took up most of Lincoln's time, or that it was one of the "biggest" clients he represented -- in which case, it sounds like we're being needlessly cautious in our phrasing?

Lincoln was dedicated to them to the point of their owing him very large legal fees, for which he needed to file suit against them to eventually recover. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endash in "Wade–Davis Bill".

Added ndash. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• He called the Declaration of Independence, which found "self-evident" that all men are created equal and have an "unalienable" right to liberty: I would rework this per MOS:QUOTEPOV.

Alter wording, and keep 'sheet anchor' as unique to Lincoln. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

We still have the very scare-quote-y quote marks: He called the Declaration of Independence, which found "self-evident" that all men are created equal and have an "unalienable" right to liberty, the "sheet anchor" of republicanism, at a time when the Constitution, which "tolerated slavery", was the focus of most political discourse. "Tolerated slavery" is a particularly problematic example, but all except "sheet anchor" need to go under QUOTEPOV. -- UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I've made that change here , though another editor who liked the quotes returned them into the text. Any preference as to which you prefer? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I can't see a read of MOS:QUOTEPOV that allows the quotation marks as written. You could rewrite the sentence to include more substantial quotation from the DoI, explicitly framed as quotation. Or, you could just knock the quote marks off and keep the wording: there's clearly no question of copyvio here and "the Declaration of Independence says that all men have an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" or similar is a perfectly respectable paraphrase.

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I've inserted your words with reference to QUOTEPOV in the edit history comment field. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Presidents' Day has the apostrophe after the s: there's several of them.

Changed. Only the last one was in genitive form; the others were just plural references to multiple presidents. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• The failure of the Peace Conference of 1861 signaled that legislative compromise was impossible: I think this is a matter of opinion (albeit well-justified scholarly opinion), and needs to be couched as such.

I've amplified the wording, though the Donald book is the main cite for this: "The failure of the Peace Conference of 1861 to attract the attendance of seven of the Confederate states in rebellion signaled that legislative compromise was impossible". ErnestKrause (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The citation isn't the issue. It's still a matter of opinion/analysis -- it's clearly not a fact that there was literally zero probability of avoiding the ACW by a political solution. We can say that historians consider there to have been no chance of such a solution, that Donald thinks it was impossible, or anything similar -- all of those are potentially facts. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Changing wording to "not practical". It is Donald who is the one who is counting the states who participate and those which do not. He uses it to draw his own conclusion as a reliable source. If you have a different reliable source who is not in agreement with him, then I could bring it into the text. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying is the problem. If an acknowledged food expert says "Ham sandwiches taste better than cheese ones", we don't have licence to print "Ham sandwiches taste better than cheese ones" on Wikipedia -- it's a matter of opinion or judgement, not fact. We do have licence to say "the food expert Charles McChef has described ham sandwiches as tastier than cheese ones", or similar. The same applies here -- a matter of historical judgement, like "Germany was responsible for the First World War", "George Washington was the greatest US president", or "the Civil War could not have been peacefully averted after 1861", can only ever be presented as a judgement or opinion, never as a fact, regardless of where it's printed. WP:V is the policy here -- a statement that isn't falsifiable isn't verifiable either -- as explained in WP:OPINION. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Adding wording to attribute viewpoint to Donald with citation. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• In the selection and use of his cabinet Lincoln employed the strengths of his rivals in a manner that emboldened his presidency: I'm not totally sure what this means, in concrete terms -- particularly between the bolded part and the rest.

Emboldened his presidency by choosing the most competent rather than most compliant candidates for the cabinet. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Right, but a presidency is an abstract noun: what does it mean for it to be emboldened? See MOS:IDIOM, which would encourage us to find a plain-language and literal way of saying whatever is intended here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

That wording of 'emboldened' I think was previously removed; the current version of that sentence presently reads as, "In selecting his cabinet, Lincoln chose the men he found the most competent, even when they had been his opponents for the presidency". ErnestKrause (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Works well (did he appoint other rivals who hadn't actually run against him, though?) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• Goodwin described the group in her biography of Lincoln as a Team of Rivals.: as we're using the term rather than the title, lc and Roman type.

Added as requested. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Democrat Stephen Johnson Field, a previous California Supreme Court justice, provided geographic and political balance: I think we need to say that the others were from the east.

They were from Ohio, Iowa and Illinois. Added. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Lincoln appointed his Treasury Secretary: is Treasury Secretary the formal title -- not Secretary of the Treasury? In any case, lc the title per MOS:PEOPLETITLES, and in Lincoln appointed his Treasury Secretary, Salmon P. Chase, to replace Taney as Chief Justice ("chief justice").

Change to lower case. Correct title is secretary of the treasury. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Lincoln believed Chase was an able jurist who would support Reconstruction legislation and that his appointment would unite the Republican Party: we've jumped ahead here: a year would be helpful, but we also need to be clear what Reconstruction was, and that Lincoln believed the end of the Civil War to be imminent.

There is distinction of Reconstruction after Lincoln in office, and during Lincoln in office. The current version deals only with the start of 1865, and the end of 1864 somewhat. I'll check the wording for emphasis. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Given all that prose, what does the table of Supreme Court justices add to the article?

The emphasis is on the number of appointments Lincoln had in his short time in office. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Right, but we get that number and the rough dates (though see my comments above) in the preceding paragraph of text, so my question is: what does the table add that we don't already have there? It's very visually prominent, so takes a lot of the reader's attention: I think we need to justify spending our metaphorical capital in that way. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Trying it without the table. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• In early April 1861, Major Robert Anderson, commander of Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, advised that he was nearly out of food. After considerable debate, Lincoln decided to send provisions; according to Michael Burlingame, he "could not be sure that his decision would precipitate a war, though he had good reason to believe that it might".: I think we need to be a bit clearer as to why this would precipitate a war, which may perhaps be the same question as "why was the fort out of food?"

I'll re-examine the wording. The provision of supplies from the North to South Carolina was seen as explicitly prevocational, interpreted by So. Carolina as an act of war/declaration of war. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• The Fort Sumter attack rallied the North to defend the nation: is this quite NPoV?

This is Burlingame's ascription of Northern sentiments at the time as cited there. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

In Wikivoice, we need to maintain NPoV even when our sources don't. It would be perfectly fine to say that public opinion in the North considered military action against the South a matter of defending the nation. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Changing wording. Now stating 'public opinion'. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

We now have The April 12 and 13 attack on Fort Sumter rallied the people of the North to support military action against the South to defend the nation, which I don't think is any better. Compare, deliberately provocatively, "many Germans supported Hitler's plan to avenge the betrayal of their country by its leaders in World War I" -- that presents the "betrayal" as a matter of fact rather than ideology, and we need to do the opposite -- "Northern public opinion saw military action against the South as a matter of defending the nation" or something like that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Amended applying your wording. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

• allowing arrests without charges: without charge is the usual term, I think.

Without formal charges. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes: when you want to say that the police detained people but they were not charged with a crime, you say "they were arrested without charge" (cf. "detained without trial", "taken without permission", etc, which are all singular even when there are multiple denied trials etc). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Er, are you sure about this? "Without formal charges" seems to be quite common in legal sources (eg). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Ngrams shows a 3:1 preference for "without charge", but on further looking around there are indeed good sources using charges, so this is editor's discretion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• the Copperhead leader Clement L. Vallandigham: what was a Copperhead?

In the party politics of Lincoln's day it is defined in the current article as: "Copperheads (anti-war Democrats) criticized Lincoln for refusing to compromise on slavery; the Radical Republicans (who demanded harsh treatment against secession) criticized him for moving too slowly in abolishing slavery". ErnestKrause (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but not for another two paragraphs, and on the other side of a section break. As usual, I'm not asking this because I haven't looked it up, but because there's a gap in the explanation we're presenting to the reader. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

He's now added as the anti-war Democrat who's a Copperhead. Copperhead is also linked. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• any compromise alienated factions on both sides of the aisle: MOS:CLICHE.

It is meant as a reflection of the complicated party politics surrounding Lincoln. His VP was a cross-party appointment as a War Democrat, alongside Lincoln's Radical Republican friends. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Right, but there are non-clichéd ways to say that in plain language: "factions in both political parties", for instance. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Using your wording. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• On August 6, 1861, Lincoln signed the Confiscation Act of 1861,: I would cut to "the Confiscation Act", since we just said it was 1861.

Added. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Lincoln's war strategy had two priorities: ensuring that Washington was well-defended and conducting an aggressive war effort for a prompt, decisive victory: no hyphen. The following footnote says "however", but I don't see a prediction of victory in 90 days as opposite to this.

No hyphen. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Hi UndercoverClassicist, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  Not at this stage; in an ideal world I'd wait for Hog Farm before moving too far forward with this one. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  I will try to finish my review this evening. Hog Farm _Talk 18:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Let's push on -- though I make no promises that I won't inadvertently re-tread old ground:

• In January 1862, after complaints of inefficiency and profiteering in the War Department, Lincoln replaced War Secretary Simon Cameron with Edwin Stanton.: "War Secretary" wasn't his title, so shouldn't be presented as such.

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• I notice we cite Stephen E. Ambrose, who has a chequered reputation when it comes to scholarship and accuracy. Sometimes this cites quite vague and potentially broad statements, like For his edification Lincoln relied on a book by Henry Halleck, Elements of Military Art and Science. -- do we just mean that Lincoln read it and liked it, or that he used this as the guide for his whole strategy?

I've removed this claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Is the Encyclopaedia Virginia really the best source for the Anaconda Plan? More critically, it doesn't seem to directly support Lincoln valued the advice of Winfield Scott, even after his retirement as Commanding General of the United States Army..

I've swapped this sourcing for Burlingame. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Marvel 2008: wonky formatting.

Fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• As linked, Burlingame 2008 v. 2 starts on p. 2067. Suggest using the page numbers of that linked source in the article.

Unlinked - the link was a convenience link only, not the version used for referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I think that's a step backwards -- making it harder for readers to verify citations and read further is not a good thing -- but I'll concede that it's allowable within the FA criteria. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Lincoln replaced Buell with William Rosecrans and McClellan with Ambrose Burnside, Rosencrans and Burnside both being politically neutral: we haven't said that Buell and McClellan had strong political views, so this comes from nowhere.

Removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Again, it's your train set, but I'm not sure that's a sensible move, especially if scholars think that their (lack of) politics was important to this decision. McClellan, after all, later ran for the White House as a Democrat, and his article is pretty explicit that his politics were a major reason why he was never given a command under Grant. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

That's certainly true, but probably best discussed in a different article? I'd rather focus entirely on Lincoln than expand on other personalities. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Hm -- the "why" is very much a Lincoln matter, so if scholars say "Lincoln selected Rosencrans and Burnside primarily for reasons of politics", or some weaker formulation like "the two men's politics played a major part in Lincoln's decision", that tells us a lot about Lincoln's mindset and priorities -- in most circumstances, it would be rather unusual to select a military officer based on the party they vote for. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Is the new addition sufficiently detailed? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I think it explains their political positions well, but two comebacks. Firstly and most importantly, I'm not sure what "Lincoln tried to stake out the central ground for his own means -- it sounds as though it means that Lincoln wanted to be the (only) neutral broker between partisan advisors, but that contradicts the first part of the sentence. Less importantly, is unlike McClellan, they were not Democratic partisans, nor were they aligned with either the Moderate or Radical Republicans controversial? Casting it as "according to" puts doubt on it, which I would avoid doing unless warranted: if someone else says "actually, Buell was a die-hard Republican", that should be added. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on why it seems contradictory? He appointed non-partisan people to take a non-partisan position. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's the hrase "stake out the central ground for his own" that, honestly, I don't understand, and any attempt I can make to infer its meaning comes out with something silly. MOS:IDIOM may apply here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:26, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I've swapped this for a different quote - does that work? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

"Shrewd" works, but why the quotes around "unlike McClellan, they were not Democratic partisans, nor were they aligned with either the Moderate or Radical" Republicans? Seems like another example where quoting hits readability and uses non-PD material without a good reason, and paraphrasing would be straightforwardly better. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Shortened wording. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Before Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, two Union generals issued their own emancipation orders, but Lincoln overrode both: he found that the decision to emancipate was not within the generals' power, and that it might induce loyal border states to secede: when did this happen? The chronology jumps around awkwardly in this section.

Amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Lincoln authorized Grant to target infrastructure—plantations, railroads, and bridges—to weaken the South's morale and fighting ability. He emphasized the defeat of the Confederate armies over destruction for its own sake: this is cited to an entire article. Can we be more precise?

Amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Another source query: the American Battlefields Trust seems perfectly reliable, but given the amount of scholarship on the ACW, would one of the many academic histories not be a better source for the casualties of the Overland Campaign?

• ISBNs -- most are converted to 13 even when the book predates this format, which is perfectly reasonable, but a few are left as 10s. I noticed Wiesman 2002.

Amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• The act created a flat tax of three percent on incomes above $800 ($28,000 in current dollars): worth saying annual incomes?

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• The Morrill Tariff was, I think, singular until Lincoln added to it.

Amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• by increasing tariff rates, which most strongly affected rural areas, or by increasing income taxes, which most strongly affected wealthier individuals: is there an implication that wealthier individuals tended to live in cities (perhaps especially in the North)?

That is accurate, but the source only discusses "rich men of the country". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• By the end of the war, $450 million worth of greenbacks were in circulation: this is obviously a big number, but can we inflate it to give a sense of exactly how big? Has anyone put a figure on roughly what percentage of the money supply this was?

I've added a comparator. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Congress also passed the Revenue Act of 1862, which established an excise tax affecting nearly every commodity, as well as the first national inheritance tax. The Revenue Act of 1862 also added a progressive tax structure to the federal income tax.: This could simply be "The act" or even "It".

Amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• The 1862 Homestead Act made millions of acres of government-held land in the West available for purchase at low cost. The 1862 Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act provided government grants for agricultural colleges in each state. The Pacific Railway Acts of 1862 and 1864 granted federal support for the construction of the United States' first transcontinental railroad, which was completed in 1869.: I'm not sure these things really belong in the paragraph on revenue-raising measures, unless I've missed something (though they are all certainly important). This seems to be closer to the Yosemite Grant in that it's Lincoln spending money in a way that shows he's taking a long view of what the post-war American state will look like, and thereby expressing confidence in eventual victory.

Reorganized. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Optional, but would it be worth joining the "Other economic policies..." paragraph to the end of the one about fraud and currency? It seems odd to do an "other" and then go into a specific branch of economic policy. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• It established a five-percent tax on incomes above $600 and a ten-percent tax on incomes above $10,000, and it raised taxes on businesses. In early 1865, Congress levied a tax of ten percent on incomes above $5000: was this latter measure simply lowering the 10% threshold, or did those over $10,000 now pay more?

The former, now clarified. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Lincoln also took action against rampant fraud during the war: rampant fraud might be a touch colourful (MOS:CLICHE?): do we really need the adjective? Alternatively, can we state in a verifiable way how big a problem fraud was?

Removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• false claims (qui tam) lawsuits: as Latin, qui tam is italicised, ideally via a language template. We should also hyphenate "false-claims lawsuits".

Amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi UC, just checking to see if there is going to be more to follow? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

• European leaders saw the division of the United States as having the potential to eliminate, or at least greatly weaken, a growing rival: except those in Russia, one assumes. Similarly, I doubt the Greek government saw the USA as a rival. I think there's probably a better way to phrase this.

  Removed this as covered by the following sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• They looked for ways to exploit the inability of the U.S. to enforce the Monroe Doctrine.: what was the Monroe Doctrine?

  Added a brief explanation. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• Lincoln's foreign policy was deficient in 1861 in terms of appealing to European public opinion: this is a bit mealy-mouthed, to be honest -- and I'm not sure it's entirely accurate (or at least not entirely complete). One of the major reasons why Britain didn't openly support the CSA, despite the "obvious" strategic and economic reasons to do so, was that British public opinion was strongly against slavery. Most people in Britain didn't much like either side -- there's an interesting and nuanced article on that topic here). Even then, it would be unusual to have shaping public opinion (as opposed to relations with governments) as an explicit or high-priority goal of a government's foreign policy.
• Seperately, the topic sentence of this paragraph is about public opinion, but then it talks almost entirely about aristocrats and governments -- and one of the interesting threads here is that their view of the conflict was not always representative of the populations of their countries.

  Removed that sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• Lincoln appointed William P. Dole as commissioner of Indian Affairs: no capitals here -- but we could call it "commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs", which would help to justify using the generally frowned-upon term "Indian".

  Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• Like his predecessors, Lincoln's policies largely focused on assimilation of Native Americans: there's not really time to give it detail here, but this is a bit whitewashing -- it would be very charitable to describe Jackson's policies as "assimilation", in particular, and that was only a few decades previously.

  Removed the reference to predecessors. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• His administration faced difficulties guarding Western settlers, railroads, and telegraph lines from Native American attacks: similarly, there's an elephant in this room -- why exactly were Native Americans attacking all of these things? See also In August 1862, the Dakota War broke out in Minnesota. Hundreds of settlers were killed and 30,000 were displaced from their homes -- it wasn't Lincoln's fault directly, but it probably should be said that the proximate cause of this whole thing was Federal representatives effectively declaring their intentions to starve the Dakota to death.

  I've added a sentence noting the underlying issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• A few months later, Lincoln issued the Lieber Code, which governed wartime conduct of the Union Army, defining command responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity.: this might be better outside the NA section; I can see the idea (is it supported in the sources?) that putting Dakota warriors on trial for war crimes created an impetus to make sure that there were rules against similar behaviour in the Union army, but the impact of this particular decision isn't really about Native Americans.
  • I also disagree with the ongoing placement of this, which I tried to push for a change in my review below. The sources I have read connect the Lieber code to the hordes of Confederate guerrillas, bushwhackers, and partisan rangers, not as something directly related to the fighting with the Native Americans. Although admittedly this is not a topic I have read extensively on. Hog Farm _Talk 13:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
    • I've moved this. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
• Lincoln believed the federal government had limited responsibility to the millions of freedmen.: limited is a bit ambiguous here -- do we mean "a little" or "only a little"? It sounds like the latter, but I'm not sure what follows bears that out.

  I'm not sure what distinction you're making between those two cases - could you clarify? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

  There's quite a different emphasis to "Unlike most of his contemporaries, Lincoln believed that the government actually did have a little responsibility..." versus "Freedmen wanted help, but Lincoln believed that the government had only little responsibility to them." Clearly, both of those are pretty wordy, but I think it would help to be clear if "little" is bringing our estimate upwards or downwards -- are we emphasising that the responsibility existed, or that it wasn't very big? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

  I've reframed this. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Long quote here from Eric Foner. Would suggest integrating into text, perhaps bringing in some other historians to help move it from quote into prose (surely Foner isn't the only person who thinks that Lincoln was against land confiscation?) On which -- where does the famous "forty acres and a mule" order (from Sherman) fit in here?

  I've shortened the quote and will look at adding some other sourcing later (and addressing your following points). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

  I've now reworked this whole paragraph with some additional sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• After being attended by Doctor Charles Leale and two other doctors,: not sure about "Doctor" in full as part of a name (we wouldn't say "Mister Abraham Lincoln"), but at any rate, it's made redundant by "two other doctors".

  Removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Johnson was sworn in as president later that same day: cut same?

  Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• The caskets containing Lincoln's body and the body of his third son Willie: -- hadn't he died three years previously? What happened there?

  Apparently he was disinterred. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• some Lincoln haters celebrated his death: would rephrase: this sounds a bit Taylor Swift.

  Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Whitman also wrote three other poems about Lincoln's assassination, all of which are famous, so it seems odd to only mention "Lilacs" here.

  Reworked. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  Walt Whitman composed several elegies: not really a problem, but why several instead of four? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Updated now to four poetic elegies. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• at a time when the Constitution, which "tolerated slavery", was the focus of most political discourse.: why the scare quotes?

  Removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• John Patrick Diggins notes, "Lincoln presented Americans a theory of history that offers a profound contribution to the theory and destiny of republicanism itself": MOS:SAID, but consider reworking into prose. What was the theory of history that Diggins is talking about here?

  Essentially the Declaration of Independence as a founding document - I've reworked this section to elaborate on that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• After the death of his son Edward in 1850 he more frequently expressed a dependence on God: best to restate Lincoln, as it's a new paragaph.

  Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• although he frequently attended First Presbyterian Church in Springfield, Illinois, with his wife beginning in 1852: rework for prose -- his wife began in 1852?

  Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• The "religious scepticism" section feels a bit light, and is quite different in emphasis to the lead of the linked main article -- particularly the part about many who knew him describing him as a Christian, and other as an atheist. I think there's more meat to be added here.

  I've expanded this section. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• In adolescence he was tall and strong; he participated in jumping, throwing, wrestling, and footraces, and "shone when he could use his exceptional strength to advantage.: another quote to attribute or rework.

  Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Lincoln was a slender six feet four inches, with a falsetto voice: I think a falsetto is something you put on, rather than a natural voice -- "high-pitched voice"?

  Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Historians have said he was "a classical liberal" in the 19th-century sense: this seems out of place in a section on his reputation: it's simply a comment on his beliefs.

  Removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• his acting on Lockean and Burkean principles on behalf of both liberty and tradition, and his devotion to the principles of the Founding Fathers: NPoV may be slipping a touch here, especially towards the end.

  Amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• the personality trait of negative capability, defined by the poet John Keats and attributed to extraordinary leaders who were "capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason": I think we can be more concise here -- and surely you don't have to be an extraordinary leader to be comfortable in uncertainty?

  Amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Lincoln has also been admired by political figures outside the U.S: Garibaldi is the odd one out here, as they were contemporaries: did anyone else at the time express admiration for him? I think it would be useful to seperate out his contemporary versus his posthumous reputation, since we note above that dying was very good for his image.

  Marx's admiration was also contemporary. I've expanded this section. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• He appears on postage stamps across the world: it would be nice to know which countries we're talking about outside the US.

  Added. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Early works attempted to mythologize him, emphasizing his mercifulness, as in The Birth of a Nation (1915).: given what that film is famous for, I'm rather surprised by this sentence -- and to see it name-dropped without a bit of context.

  I've substituted a different example. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Seems like a very good one (and it's earlier, anyway). If The Birth of a Nation actually does give him a positive portrayal, that might be noteworthy, given its obvious hostility to what he did. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• We haven't actually mentioned when the Lincoln Memorial was built; I think it's interesting that it was planned from very soon after his death, but only put up in the 1920s.

Adding that it was dedicated in 1922. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note C needs a née template.

  Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note E -- the usual complaint about decontextualised and unattributed quotes. Does it need to be a quote at all? Ditto note I: I don't think any of those need to be quotes -- we shouldn't really be pronouncing anything about medical conditions that isn't securely known.

  Removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note F is uncited.

  Removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note J could do with a better source, if one can be found.
• Note 235: italicise qui tam

Now italic. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

• Can we get a better source for the film than Screen Rant?

  Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Just on a sniff test, Abel's book looks a bit fringey to me. Could you offer any reassurance about it?

  I've swapped in a different source. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• "Volume" should be consistently abbreviated as "Vol." (NB upper case), not "v.".

  I'd prefer to keep the shorter version for the short cites, unless there's a reason to do otherwise? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  Personally, I think there is: "v." usually abbreviates "version", and this confusion is more likely when we're using "vol." in the bibliography entries (as the template does automatically). For the sake of two characters a time, I'm not sure the inconsistency is worth it. What do you think? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Switched to vol. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note 358: italicise ship name.

Now Italic. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

• Not sure about National Geographic as a high-quality historical source.

  I've condensed this section and removed that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Paul Simon (not that one) was a politician with no academic degree; what makes his book a HQRS?

  It was published by a university press, and a review in Civil War History of an earlier edition described it as "valuable to the professional historian and Lincoln scholar". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  That suits me. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

That's all for now -- I hope the above is helpful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Just going back through the later sections in light of Nikki's edits:

• Union diplomats had to explain that the United States was not committed to ending slavery, and instead they argued that secession was unconstitutional: initially or similar? After all, after a certain point, the Union was committed to ending slavery.

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• ignoring slavery and instead focusing on their struggle for liberty: hold on a minute! "Struggle for independence"?

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Though the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation ... Any chance of a European intervention in the war ended with the Union victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg -- I would put dates on these to remind readers where we are, chronologically.

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Lincoln appointed William P. Dole as commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and made "extensive use of Indian Service positions to reward political supporters".: another beat on the usual drum.

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Appointed as a state militia colonel, Henry Hastings Sibley eventually defeated Little Crow at the Battle of Wood Lake: we've introduced Sibley, so should do the same for Little Crow.

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Suggest getting a link in to 1862 Mankato mass execution. Our article on the subject is pretty clear that the trials were not fair, put mildly (though it's not fully cited) -- that should probably make its way into this article briefly.

I've added some detail. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Lincoln pardoned all but 39, and, with one getting a reprieve: slightly odd phrasing: Lincoln suspended his execution after being told that he may not have been guilty -- it seems that he was imprisoned instead.

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• he would have gotten: is this formal in AmeE: received?

Amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Changes were made in response to the Sand Creek Massacre of November 1864: can we give a sense of the sort of changes Lincoln wanted -- did he want it more or less murderous, for example?

I've added some detail. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Repeated examples of Grant's bloody stalemates and Confederate victories damaged Lincoln's re-election prospects: almost an earlier point in reverse; could we now name-drop some of these to remind readers where we are?

I've added an example from Burlingame. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• co-operate with the President elect: President-elect (per MOS:CONFORM if nothing else)? Did Lincoln really write the memorandum in the third person?

The "he" being referenced is the winner of the 1864 election, which Lincoln believed at this point would be someone else. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes -- of course. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• At one point, Confederate Vice President Stephens: an edge case under MOS:PEOPLETITLES. I think better framed explicitly as a description, so "Alexander H. Stephens, the Confederate vice president" -- and with his full name given.

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• At one point, Confederate Vice President Stephens led a meeting with Lincoln, Seward, and others at Hampton Roads. Lincoln refused to negotiate with the Confederacy as a coequal: so what did they do at the meeting?

The only thing they accomplished was agreeing to exchange prisoners - now added. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• It triggered a series of subsequent surrenders across the South, in North Carolina, Alabama, and the Trans-Mississippi Theater: I would dash off "South -- in North Carolina, Alabama, and the Trans-Mississippi Theater --", since those places are in the South. Our article has lowercase for "trans-Mississippi theater", though there may be reason not to do that here.

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Lincoln's main goal was to keep the union together, so he proceeded by focusing not on blame but on rebuilding: Union? Separately, this is a bit woolly, but not sure how much can be done about that.

Lincoln was strongly against secession; this could be further emphasized. See comment below on his view of American nationalism. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Right, but we're now talking about after the war -- are we saying that Lincoln worried that the defeated states might (somehow) secede again? Even then, I'm struggling to put this into concrete, falsifiable terms. What did "focusing not on blame but on rebuilding" mean in practice? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

The pardons discussed later are one practical example - I've reorganized the paragraph to make that clearer. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• However, the professor Phillip S. Paludan suggests: professor isn't a great title, though I understand the desire not to say "historian ... historian ... historian" -- it implies that there's some difference betwen Paludan and the others, when there probably isn't, and invites "professor of what?"

Drop the title. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• See also: American nationalism: I'm not sure why we should particularly see this for Lincoln's beliefs; it isn't mentioned in the text.

The link to American nationalism is in reference to Lincoln's strong view that secession should be denounced as anarchy. He preferred the perspective of a strong American nationalism for union. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Hold on -- supporting the unity of the United States doesn't make you an American nationalist, any more than supporting the unity of NATO makes you an Americo-Canadio-Franco-German-etc nationalist. More to the point, if we're going to make the argument that American nationalism was a strong component of Lincoln's beliefs, we need to actually make the argument (and cite it) rather than just implying it with a hatnote. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the hatnote. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• He presented the Declaration as establishing equality as a foundational principle for the United States: I mean, yes, but do we need to take this further -- racial equality? After all, it's hard not to present it as establishing some kind of equality as a founding principle.

The question of Lincoln's strong reading of Jefferson is mentioned in the article; should it be revisited again. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't specifically racial equity, or at least not only so. Jividen argues that the Constitution was all about individual freedoms, but Lincoln's emphasis on the Declaration led to the equal protection laws and social welfare programs of the 20th century. I've elaborated on this. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Link the House Divided Speech in the religion section, as with the others?

Its previously linked in the section on "Lincoln–Douglas debates and Cooper Union speech". ErnestKrause (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Relinked. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Frederick Douglass stated that in "his company, I was never reminded of my humble origin, or of my unpopular color: is it worth explicitly stating that Douglass was black and a former slave? He's canonical in the United States but not quite as universally known elsewhere. It can be inferred from the quote, but I don't know if some readers might miss it.

Adding that he spoke as a representative of the black community. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Added also that he was a former slave. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Defenders of Lincoln retorted that he was a "moral visionary" who deftly advanced the abolitionist cause, as fast as politically possible.: MOS:SAID: I think this needs to be explicitly a matter of opinion, particularly the last part. I think most historians would see that as revisionism, at least if describing Lincoln pre the mid Civil War.

Stirner is the cited author who refers to those scholars who saw Lincoln as the Great Emancipator. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but I don't see what that changes -- "retorted that" implies that the statement is true, which we can't do, and the overall framing of the sentence is that this characterisation is a matter of fact, which it isn't (passing no judgement on whether it's right). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Better? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, as long as we think that the term "moral visionary" is consistently linked with "the Great Emancipator" -- is that so? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Great -- we need a source for it, then. The cited source (Striner) has "To what extent should Lincoln be regarded as our nation's 'Great Emancipator'? This book will show that Lincoln was a masterful anti-slavery leader. A moral visionary." It's WP:SYNTH to extrapolate from that specific case (someone who believes Lincoln should be called the Great Emancipator and calls him a moral visionary) to a general statement that those who believe he was a great emancipator also believe he was a moral visionary. We need a source that outright talks about this as a point of view. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

"Moral visionary" is a specific quote, but the general sentiment is definitely not unique. I've reworked with some additional sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm seeing this in the sources you've added -- any chance of specific page numbers or quotations? In Ross, I did pull out Despite that historiographical turn, an effort to rehabilitate Lincoln as the Great Emancipator has worked to regain lost ground. Historians invoked not only Lincoln’s moral condemnation of slavery during the 1850s but also the change in his position on emancipation and civil rights during the Civil War, although how far and at what speed he changed is still disputed. Those historians emphasize the boldness of Lincoln’s moves against slavery and explain his racist remarks as necessary, if regrettable, political rhetoric on the road to emancipation.. That seems to contradict deftly advanced the abolitionist cause, as fast as politically possible, and we're still a bit adrift for "moral visionary" as a consistent part of the Great Emancipator narrative. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

From Wilson, in the section "The Debate Over Lincoln as the Great Emancipator": "G.S. Boritt, Alan Guelzo, Phillip S. Paludan, and Richard Striner are only a sample of the prominent historians who have argued that Lincoln worked ceaselessly within the limits of the Constitution to free the slaves and that he was not compromised by the ideology of white supremacy... Lincoln deserves his sacred place in our public memory, these scholars argue, because he accomplished what no other politician dared". I had changed "visionary" to "leader" based on that last piece, but it seems another editor feels "visionary" to be a better descriptor; your thoughts? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

OK -- I'm seeing advanced the abolitionist cause, as fast as politically possible there, but Ross is explicitly saying that this isn't universally agreed even among "Great Emancipator" believers. I'm not sure I'm seeing "moral visionary/moral leader" -- Wilson doesn't seem to be explicitly saying that he was morally on the side of abolition, and indeed there were plenty of people opposed to slavery for reasons of a different kind (political, economic, racist...) I would consider reworking to something like Defenders of Lincoln highlighted his condemnation of slavery and his contribution to abolition, casting his delays and use of racist rhetoric as concessions to political necessity rather than reflections of his personal beliefs. The wording of that isn't great, but I think the general thrust seems to be closer to what these sources are saying. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

• The United States Navy Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) is named after Lincoln, the second Navy ship to bear his name: the first being...?

Its actually the third, the first two not being at the stature of the current aircraft carrier; it might go off topic to cover them all. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Could do "three vessels [UC: one's a boat] of the United States NAvy, including the Nimitz-class carrier ... have been named after Lincoln"? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

• I would put a "The" at the front of the Lincoln Memorial caption, for consistency with the others.

Added, ErnestKrause (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

HF - support

I intend to do a full review; I just won't have as much time onwiki as I would like for several days due to a sudden real-life work project. I have an open Civil War-related FAC myself that could use comments either positive or negative, but of course I intend there to be no pressure to review that one. Hog Farm _Talk 01:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Noah Haynes Swayne, a prominent corporate lawyer, who replaced John McLean after the latter's death in April 1861." - this is a sentence fragment

Copy edit correction. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• In the Early Union military strategy, there really ought to be some reference to the Anaconda Plan - while Scott's proposal was never formally adopted, the general ideas became key elements of the northern war plans.

Added. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Likewise, the Union blockade should be linked in the body and not just the lead

Not in current version of lede or body. Possibly it could be added as part of the Anaconda Plan edit you mention above. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Added. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• " General Henry Halleck, " - For American Civil War topics, you need to be very careful with the use of the term "General". The South had a formal, specific rank known as "General" that was a four-star rank; there was no equivalent rank for the North (the highest was Grant's late war three-star rank), but it's still a bit problematic to use that term for Union officers because of the specific terminological meaning on the other side. Halleck was a Major General. The later reference to "General Robert E. Lee" by contrast is accurate

Amend to Major General. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

There is still "General Zachary Taylor", "General Don Carlos Buell", and a few others. If you're going to be using it as a generic term like in "General Pope" I don't think it should be capitalized as it is not a proper title. Hog Farm _Talk 16:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• "For his edification Lincoln relied on a book by his chief of staff General Henry Halleck, Elements of Military Art and Science." - Halleck did not have an appointment as a chief of staff until 1864; he had a departmental command out west first in Missouri and adjacent areas and then into Tennessee/Mississippi from which he was called east to become the General in Chief in July 1862.

Its Major General now. Attention in the article goes quickly to George B. McClellan next. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that we are erroneously calling Halleck a "chief of staff" in a time period where he was not anybody's chief of staff. Hog Farm _Talk 16:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Amended. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Link RMS Trent?

Linked. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)