Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2026

Support from Jon698

I would love to look over this article. I will be making some comments soon. Jon698 (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• I will be using Yongle Emperor for comparison in some parts
• 1. The Yongle Emperor's lede mentions him being the the fourth son of the Hongwu Emperor in the first paragraph. Could a mention of Hongwu Emperor's low-birth be mentioned as well? Currently his only family mention in the lede is being orphaned.
  • Done.
• 2. "a government of generals and Confucian scholars" -> Wikilink Confucianism
  • Done.
• 3. "In 1344, during a plague epidemic, Zhu Xingzong's parents and one of his brothers died." + "Zhu then entered a local Buddhist monastery." -> These should be part of the same paragraph if you are going to use the word "then"
  • Done.
• 4. "Zhu then entered a local Buddhist monastery." -> Wikilink Buddhism
  • Done.
• 5. "The presence of Taoist and Buddhist secret societies" -> Wikilink Taoism
  • Done.
• 6. "In 1352, when the Yuan army burned down Zhu's monastery after suspecting the monks of links to the White Lotus society, Zhu joined the rebels." -> Could this be reorganized to be easier to read like "Zhu joined the rebels in 1352, as the Yuan army burned down Zhu's monastery after suspecting the monks of links to the White Lotus society."
  • Done.
• 7. "On 15 April of the same year," -> "of the same year" is unnecessary as the year has already been stated in the previous sentence
  • Done.
• 8. "Zhu entered into a dispute over Hezhou, a city situated on the banks of the Yangtze," -> Wikilink Hezhou
  • Done. Hezhou (Anhui)
• 9. "In July 1355, the Hezhou rebels obtained a fleet from rebels arriving from Chao Lake" -> Wikilink Chao Lake
  • Done.
• 10. "Zhu defeated the local Yuan commander Chen Yexian (陳野先), who surrendered to him, but Chen betrayed Guo Tianxu during an attack on Jiqing (present-day Nanjing) in September 1355." -> This could be shortened to "The local Yuan commander Chen Yexian (陳野先) surrendered to Zhu, but Chen betrayed Guo Tianxu during an attack on Jiqing (present-day Nanjing) in September 1355."
  • Done.
• 11. "In January 1369, the main army, led by Xu Da, captured Taiyuan, while Köke Temür retreated to Gansu. In the spring of 1369, Ming troops also began to occupy Shaanxi.[76] They had fully captured the province by September 1369, but border skirmishes with Köke Temür's troops persisted until 1370.[77]" -> Does this need to be its own paragraph? It is continuing the story from the previous paragraph so shouldn't they just be one paragraph?
  • Done.
• 12. "It remained unchanged until the fall of the empire, although additional provisions were later added." -> Just a technicality, but shouldn't it be dynasty rather than empire? Entirely optional change
  • Done.
• 13. "The administrative structure of the Ming dynasty was modeled after the Yuan model" -> Could "modeled" be changed to "based" as "modeled after the Yuan model" feels awkward
  • Done.
• 14. "restrictions on personal names" -> I think a wikilink to Chinese name would be useful since naming conventions in China are dramatically different from the west
  • Done.
• 15. "the Sumatran Kingdom of Melayu" -> Wikilink Melayu Kingdom
  • Done.
• 16. "attacking eastern Mongolia and Manchuria with another 50,000 soldiers" -> wikilink Manchuria
  • @Jon698: Done. Min968 (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
• I have no more comments. BTW if you want, could you leave a comment on my FAC

ZKang123

Will do a review.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 03:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Lead:

• The orphaned Zhu then briefly lived as a novice monk, begging for alms and gaining insight into common people's hardships, while developing a dislike for book-dependent scholars - suggest spliting. Also "then" is unnecessary
• In 1352, he joined the Red Turban rebels, a movement that sought to overthrow Yuan rule, and soon proved his ability, rising to command his own army - "soon proved his ability" is also redundant
• In early 1368, after successfully dominating southern and central China, Zhu chose to rename the Kingdom of Wu. He decided on the name Da Ming, which translates to "Great Radiance", for his empire, and designated Hongwu, meaning "Vastly Martial", as the name of the era and the motto of his reign. - Slight rewrite to: After successfully dominating southern and central China in early 1368, Zhu decided to rename the Kingdom of Wu to Da Ming, which translates to "Great Radiance". He also declared himself the Hongwu Emperor, meaning "Vastly Martial", which was also the motto of his reign.
• but his attempt to conquer Mongolia ended in failure - but failed to conquer Mongolia
• Lead is quite missing on his death and who succeeded him. Might mention the leadership struggle between his grandson and the uncle who overthrew him
  • All done.

Rise to power:

• widespread opposition to the rule of the Yuan dynasty - also mention the Yuan was Mongol-led
• and took control in order to establish order in the surrounding area - wont taking control already mean establishing order? Might just say "and established order in the surrounding area"
• While Zhu was considered physically unattractive[24] and he began as a rank-and-file fighter, his exceptional leadership, decisiveness, martial skill, and intelligence quickly earned him significant authority. Might rewrite to: "Zhu began as a rank-and-file fighter. While he was considered physically unattractive, Zhu's exceptional leadership, decisiveness, martial skill, and intelligence quickly earned him significant authority.
• Unlike other leaders of his time, Zhu had a small number of relatives who were appointed to important positions, at a time when family ties were crucial for ensuring loyalty and reliability need clarification: do the other leaders have more relatives appointed, or none at all? Because the way it's written seems ambiguous
• The rivalry between Peng and Zhao escalated into a full-blown conflict. Guo was initially captured Guo was captured by who? And in this conflict, did he side with anyone, or remained neutral?
• The local Yuan commander Chen Yexian (陳野先) surrendered to Zhu, but betrayed Guo Tianxu during an attack on Jiqing (present-day Nanjing) in September 1355. How did the local commander betray Guo? Like, just leave Guo to the Yuan forces and pulled out?
• For the subsection "Southern campaigns and northern expeditions (1367–1382)" please be aware of WP:PROSELIST
  • All done.

More comments to come.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 12:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Just a note that I'm right now on holiday and unable to continue a proper review until I return home on 7 July.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 23:40, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

1370s: reforms, consolidation, and stability:

• I felt "1370s" is a bit misnamed since this section still mention events in the 1380s and 90s. I understand though it's to focus on the early years of his reign and any changes after.
  • Although the section includes some events from the 1380s and 1390s, its primary focus is on the reforms initiated in the 1370s and their subsequent development, so I think the current title remains appropriate.
• was meticulous in his efforts to establish a new society after the fall of the Yuan dynasty. What exactly does this "new society" mean
• but these frequent changes... he aimed to prevent the decay of society and the dynasty in the future, as well as any changes to his laws Might clarify the last point is change of laws by other people, if I must presume.
• The Emperor believed that providing every man with a field and every woman with a loom would alleviate the people's hardships. This ideal was not reflected in reality, as the wealthy held a disproportionate amount of land and often found ways to avoid paying taxes.... By the end of his reign, very few large landowners remained. A bit confused, particularly with the part: "This ideal was not reflected in reality". Like did he try to purge as many large landowners, but there's still a wealthy class?
• The Hongwu Emperor resettled 14,300 wealthy families from Zhejiang and the Yingtian area from their estates to Nanjing. Written a bit oddly here, especially the "from Zhejiang and the Yingtian area from their estates"
• There were no arable lands available I presume in the entirety of China?
• the Hongwu Emperor made it a priority to stabilize the government in China. – the Hongwu Emperor prioritized stabilizing the government in China.
• This was likely due to the memory of the failed Mongol invasion of Japan If I recall there were multiple invasions. Also, whose memory?
• Personally I felt this section is still a bit too much in detail, especially explaining how these policies were executed and why. And some sentences seem to broadly attribute the actions to the Ming government than the Emperor himself (e.g. "Viewing trade as corrupting, the government banned private foreign trade... The Ming forbade its citizens to leave the empire... Foreign relations played a crucial role in establishing the legitimacy of Ming rule.") I would focus more on the parts that are more attributable to the Emperor's actions and philosophies.
  • I understand your point, but I believe the current level of detail is necessary to explain the implementation of the Hongwu Emperor's policies and the ideas behind them. I also think the references to the Ming government are appropriate in context, as they describe policies enacted under the Emperor's direction.

@ZKang123: All done. Min968 (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:09, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

1380s and 1390s:

• The Emperor was highly concerned about potential conspiracies among the generals, a number of whom he executed, as seen in the cases of Hu Weiyong and Lan Yu Rewrite: The emperor was deeply concerned about conspiracies among his generals and had several executed, most notably/including Hu Weiyong and Lan Yu.
• were excluded from the administration of the country. Do you mean were excluded from administrating the country.?
• In 1381, the Ming army, led by Fu Youde, quickly conquered Yunnan, but suppressing local uprisings kept Fu's soldiers occupied for several more years. – ..., but spent several more years suppressing local uprisings.
• In the autumn of 1391, the Emperor's heir, Zhu Biao, went on an inspection trip to Shaanxi, where he was supposed to assess the possibility of moving the capital to Xi'an,[177] but upon his return he fell ill and died in 1392. The sudden death of the heir caused instability in the power system. – In the autumn of 1391, the emperor's heir, Zhu Biao, inspected Shaanxi to assess the possibility of relocating the capital to Xi'an.[177] However, he fell ill on his return and died in 1392, creating uncertainty over the imperial succession.

Assessment:

• Alternatively, some argue that the unification of the country under a centralized state with an all-powerful emperor during the Ming dynasty was the culmination of a long process that began with the Qin and Han dynasties. Sentence is a bit complex. Also "some argued" is a bit of WP:WEASEL
• Similar for this: Although the peak of his political system crumbled in a civil war shortly after his death, other results of the Hongwu Emperor's reforms, such as local and regional institutions for Ming state administration and self-government, as well as the financial and examination systems, proved to be resilient

That's all the comments I have.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@ZKang123 All done. Min968 (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Placing Support.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 10:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

I've already reviewed a couple of these (Jianwen and Yongle), I might as well do this one as well. As is my wont with long articles, I'll attack this in sections over a few days. RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

One general comment is that at 8700 words, this is getting into the area where reviewers are going to start complaining about the length. It's possible this is what dissuaded people from reviewing it the first couple of times it was here. Articles usually get longer during reviews; you'll need to be vigilant to keep that from happening. Look at every word and sentence and ask yourself if it's really pulling its weight or if it could be cut without loss to the overall article.

• The article has been reduced to about 8202 words, approximately the same length as the Yongle Emperor article that was recently successfully nominated for FA. Min968 (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Support by Векочел

I will review this. Векочел (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• I have made some fairly minor edits to the article, and am pleased to support it for FA. Векочел (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

BorgQueen

• MOS:SEEALSO says: As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body. I see one of the links, Xiao Mausoleum, is linked in the article body. Are there others? They need to be removed from the See also section. BorgQueen (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  @BorgQueen Done. Min968 (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Min968 Thanks. Another thing about the section is that Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. I see an annotation has been given for one of the links. I think Hongwu Tongbao and Mandate of Heaven could use annotations too. The annotations could be added manually, or you could use the template {{Annotated link}}. BorgQueen (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  @BorgQueen Done. Min968 (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• His maternal grandfather was a fortune-teller and seer who, in his youth, had served in the army of the Song dynasty during its final struggle against the Mongols before the dynasty fell in 1279.: "seer" is somewhat vague and may mean several different things, such as a person with prophetic abilities (who literally "sees" the future), or, more generally, someone who foretells the future through divination. As the sentence already says he was a fortune-teller, "seer" doesn't add much. I don't know what the original Chinese word for that, but maybe calling him a fortune-teller would be enough? Does the source specifically call him a seer? BorgQueen (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  @BorgQueen Zhu Yuanzhang recollected the vivid impressions gained when he was very young of his maternal grandfather, then a very old man, apparently somewhat literate, who had been a professional fortune-teller and seer, and who had told him stories about his experiences with the Song armies fleeing the Mongols in 1279. Mote 2003. p. 544 Min968 (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  Very well, I’m happy with that. BorgQueen (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• To address the issue of landlessness, the government gave peasants free land, with peasants in the north receiving 15 mu per field and 2 per garden, and southern peasants receiving 16 mu. Hereditary soldiers were given 50 mu.[131] I’m guessing "mu" is a unit. If this unit isn’t explained elsewhere in the article, it could use a parenthetical gloss or a footnote, along with an appropriate link (if there’s a Wikipedia article on it). BorgQueen (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  @BorgQueen I've added a link to mu so readers can easily see that it's a Chinese unit of area. Min968 (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Min968 The link certainly helps; however MOS:NOFORCELINK says: Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links. BorgQueen (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  @BorgQueen Done. Min968 (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• In 1368, the Emperor resided in Kaifeng during the months of June–August and October–November, leading to the city being known as Beijing ('Northern Capital') Apparently, this Beijing isn’t Beijing, is it? This might confuse the reader, which is why I linked Kaifeng, which you then delinked. I’m aware Kaifeng is already linked earlier in the article, but I thought it was contextually important enough to justify linking it again in this section. Alternatively, perhaps a footnote making it clear that "Beijing" here is an honorific title temporarily applied to Kaifeng, not the modern capital. What do you think? BorgQueen (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  @BorgQueen Done. Min968 (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• The government abolished 3,000 Buddhist and Taoist monasteries, and limited each county to one monastery with a maximum of two monks. 214,000 Buddhist and 300,000 Taoist monks and nuns returned to secular life.[131] The figures of 214,000 Buddhist and 300,000 Taoist monks and nuns seem implausibly precise for the period. Does the source present these as official government records, or are they modern estimates? If there is uncertainty, the wording should reflect that (e.g. "about" or "according to official records"). BorgQueen (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  @BorgQueen Some 3000 Buddhist and Daoist monasteries were dismantled. In conjunction with this, 214,000 Buddhist and 300,000 Daoist monks and nuns were defrocked and their property confiscated. Li 2010 p. 30 Min968 (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Min968 The use of "Some 3000" indicates approximation for the number of monasteries, which needs the same qualifier ("some", etc) in our article too, reflecting the source. BorgQueen (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  @BorgQueen Done. Min968 (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• In the Foreign relation section, "Ryukyu" is currently linked to Ryukyu Islands. Shouldn't it actually be Ryukyu Kingdom? BorgQueen (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC) Actually, nevermind. The Kingdom didn’t exist back then. BorgQueen (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• The "Assessment" section could use a bit of rephrasing. For example:
  • … laid the groundwork for a prosperous and thriving era is redundant. "Prosperous era" is enough.
  • In recognition of his achievements sounds slightly celebratory. "Accordingly" or "In keeping with this assessment" is more neutral.
  • Modern historians, influenced by… is too generalizing. Not all modern historians share these assumptions, and "anti-monarchist mindset" is especially problematic unless the source explicitly says that.
    • On the other hand, modern historians, both Chinese and non-Chinese, who have written in the shadow of twentieth-century dictators and under the influence of current antimonarchical ideology and psychohistorical theory have tended to view Hung-wu as a tyrant and dwell on the capricious executions and recurrent terror of his reign—and the mental imbalance that these apparently reflect. Dreyer 1982. p. 152

BorgQueen (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@BorgQueen Pinging Min968 (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@BorgQueen So, at the moment, I'm not sure where this review stands. Min968 (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Min968 oh, I think I'll wait for the map RoySmith suggested. I'm sure it'll be worth the wait. BorgQueen (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Source and image review

What's "Science and Civilisation in China " in File:Ming Dynasty eruptor proto-cannon.jpg? ALT text, image placement etc seem fine otherwise. For a Chinese emperor, that's surely a very western source list. Everything else seems fine and consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus Fixed. Joseph Needham (1986). Science and Civilization in China: Volume 5, Part 7, Military Technology; the Gunpowder Epic. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521303583. p.266 Min968 (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Coord note

Hello Roy, BorgQueen -- could you let me know how things stand now? In your own sections is fine, wherever... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ian Rose Support. BorgQueen (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both for your prompt responses. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Comments from Metalicat

Coming to this as a non-specialist on Benin history, so this is prose, MoS and internal consistency, with one sourcing query I couldn't settle myself.

• The Ekoko n'Utẹ origin is cited to Paton Jr 1981 at pp. 119–120, and again at p. 120. I went to confirm it and want to flag rather than assert. The bound Kiabàrà vol. 4 does contain the Ohen-and-Elere royal-romance festival material at a pp. 119–120, so the content is real. But that volume binds several separately-paginated articles, and Adell Patton Jr's own record gives his Kiabàrà 4:2 paper (pp. 105–125) as "Oral Tradition in the Reconstruction of Ningi History", i.e. 19th-century northern Hausaland, which is nothing to do with Benin festival drama. So the pp. 119–120 Ohen material looks likely to come from a different article in the volume rather than Patton's. Could you confirm the author and title of the piece the pp. 119–120 material actually comes from? If it isn't Patton, the citations here would need the correct author.
  • @Metalicat: It is very likely that you are correct here. In fact, I read that Paton Jr source from snippet view like so. After seeing that the information is in pp 119 and 120, I then tried look for the table of contents for the publication "ADELL+PATON+Jr+:+Oral+Tradition+in+the+Reconstruction"&dq="ADELL+PATON+Jr+:+Oral+Tradition+in+the+Reconstruction"&printsec=frontcover which I found here (I think you should open this wikitext to copy this direct link as this will break), so from here I saw that Paton Jr's article started at page 105 and ended at 127, since Gloria's article starts at that number 127. You can see how much of a hassle that was? So, if you have a physical copy or something you might want to search for the exact text Oba Ohen ( 1379 ) of Old Benin Kingdom and Elere , the legendary beautiful maiden of Ute , six kilometres away from Benin to be able to tell who wrote the article in case I am wrong. Do you have a physical copy? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Confirmed the Ohen/Elere sentence is on p. 120, so the content's there. I still can't get the byline from snippet view, and two things make me think it isn't Patton's. Searching the same volume for "Sokoto" also lands on a p. 120, carrying Patton's Ningi and Mahdist material, which can't be the same page as the Benin romance if it's one article. And the volume's contents page seems to put Gloria Thomas-Emeagwali's "Perspectives on the Reconstruction of the African Past" at p. 120, with Patton's piece lower down, though it's too blurred for me to be certain. Neither of us has the physical volume, so this probably needs a proper scan to settle. If p. 119–120 turn out to be Thomas-Emeagwali's, the cites need reattributing; if they're Patton's, happy to be wrong. I can usually run down even obscure scholarship, but short of keeping a Port Harcourt journal run in the spare room, this one's eluded me. Metalicat (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Metalicat So, what do I do at this point? Lol! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I've chased this as far as the open web goes and can't settle the byline from here, the volume's snippet-only on Google Books, not on JSTOR or MUSE, and the reviews I can find are of other Kiabàrà volumes. So here's where it stands: the Ohen/Elere sentence is definitely on p. 120; Gloria Emeagwali's Walter Rodney article is definitely in this volume (per her own publication list); and the contents page appears to start her article at p. 120, which would put the Ohen material in her piece, not Patton's. I can't read that contents page clearly enough to be certain though. What settles it is the running head or byline on the actual pp. 119–120, which needs the physical volume: WorldCat will show which libraries hold Kiabàrà vol. 4, and WP:RX can usually get you a scan of the contents page and pp. 119–120 from one of them, the running head names the author outright. If it comes back Emeagwali, the cite just needs reattributing; the claim itself is fine either way, since Obuh and Curnow already support it. Happy to leave it for the source reviewer if you'd rather not chase a scan now. Metalicat (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

One addition to my comment: Since Obuh and Curnow already carry the Ekoko n'Utẹ point, dropping the Kiabàrà cite is cleaner than reattributing it on a guess, unless WP:RX turns up a scan that names the author. Metalicat (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Metalicat TBH, I am going with this, I just removed it now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Paralysis and concealment: recorded by author Heather Millar in his 1997 book — Millar is a woman (catalogued as "Millar, Heather, 1963-"), so this wants her. In the same sentence, state that the revelation should be states, to agree with "tradition".
  • Very correct, fixed. –VWF
• Guilds and court organisation: before Ohen's period. archaeologist Graham Connah's excavations — "archaeologist" opens the sentence and needs a capital.
  • Fixed. –VWF
• The name is Elẹrẹ throughout, but twice appears as Elere without the subdots in the Ekoko n'Utẹ masquerade section. Worth a consistency pass, unless that deliberately follows the spellings in the cited sources.
  • Fixed. –VWF
• Minor (MOS:DUPLINK): Ikpoba River is linked three times within "Legends and oral traditions" (twice under the Elẹrẹ traditions, once under the masquerade); the guideline would keep just the first.
  • Fixed. –VWF

Metalicat (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Metalicat Thank you for your feedback. Please look at my reply to your first point above. Tysm! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Checked the removal has landed cleanly, no orphaned citations, and the Ekoko n'Utẹ material now rests on Obuh and Curnow, which is solid. One tiny knock-on: the masquerade section opens Several sources link Ohen with the origins, and with the Kiabàrà cite gone that's now two sources, so perhaps Oral traditions and later scholarship link Ohen with the origins or simply name Curnow and Obuh. With that, all my points are resolved. Support on prose, MoS and internal consistency. Metalicat (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, true. Fixed, thank you so much! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Consider establishing the setting by adding a few more sentences to "Background" section. Although the article does is not required to define/summarize the kingdom that the king reigned (after all, readers can click on the wikilinks); it would be help some lay readers if the article was a bit more standalone. Consider adding 1 to 3 sentences at the start of the "Background" that tell the reader:
  • What is the kingdom
  • When did the kingdom exist
  • Where is it in modern africa
  • What is the big-picture situation at the time of Ohen (is it a time of warfare? of peace? of growth?)
  • Define the word "Oba" again (gloss in lead may not be noticed by some readers)
    • @Noleander: I have defined "Oba" again, thought I did. I usually add that footnote [a] and it explains these questions, is that okay? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
• InfoBox/Sidebar image caption could be clearer to casual readers first looking at the article: "A mudfish-legged figure of an Oba, possibly Ohen symbolising his paralysis". Many readers won't know what "Oba" is since they have not yet read the body text. Maybe "This copper figure of an Edo leader may represent Ohen." or "The mudfish legs on this figure of an Edo leader may represent Ohen's paralysis" or similar?
  • I like "The mudfish legs on this figure of an Edo leader may represent Ohen's paralysis", thanks! –VWF
• Wording: "Mudfish-legged royal figures appear on Benin plaques, carved ivory tusks, and other royal arts, and their interpretation is not limited to a literal representation of Ohen's paralysis." Literal doesn't seem correct there. Is "figurative" or "symbolic" better? Or even omit the word: " ... their interpretation is not limited to a representation of Ohen's paralysis"
  • Removed. –VWF
• Double period at end of quotes: ... leadership of the Esere.". and ... Osodin, is traced to Ewedo.". I think the MOS guidelines say that only one period should be displayed in that situation: inside the quote if the quote includes a period; or outside the quote if not.
  • Ah true, fixed. –VWF
• Quotes needed in citations? Several cites in Citation section contain quotes, e.g. ...Ryder 1969, p. 6, "As the latter title is of more recent origin than that ..." They kinda make the Citation section ugly. Normally quotes would only be displayed there if the material the citation applies to is contentious or astounding. Is that the case here? Consider eliminating those quotes, or moving the quotes into an explanatory efn footnote (adjacent to the cite). This is just a suggestion, not required for FA.
  • Removed quotes. –VWF
• The "Show Ref Check" tool says that book sources do not use the "location" (city) field consistently: " Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (1 with; 7 without)". Suggest that all 8 books should include location or exclude it.
  • Removed the only one. –VWF
• More consistency with dashes: The article has many n-dashes in page # ranges, and also lots of n-dashes in the NavBoxes at bottom ... so the few m-dashes in the quote/loc field of some cites is a bit jarring e.g. " that of Umangue—almost". Although MOS:DASH permits that type of inconsistency, consider changing those few m-dashes to spaced n-dashes. The fact that the m-dashes are inside quotes is not relevant: The MOS permits changes to dashes within quotes if it enhances overall uniformity.
  • Fixed. –VWF
• Overly detailed attribution: "Academics Ediagbonya Michael, Aluko Yemi, and Abiodun Duyile in Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research wrote that Ohen introduced..." and "Academic Heidi Nast in Servants of the Dynasty: Palace Women in World History recorded oral traditions ..." Readers sometimes benefit from the name the scholar(s), but also naming the book/journal should only be done if there is a strong reason (e.g. the book is famous; or the journal is contentious). Including book/journal names here gives the appearance that the editor of the article is trying to pad-out the word count :-) Consider removing name of book/journal.
  • Fixed. –VWF
• Multiple names in attribution: "Academics Ediagbonya Michael, Aluko Yemi, and Abiodun Duyile in ..." Making the reader read three full names before getting to the fact of the sentence is not friendly. Naming a scholar is not required except when the fact being presented is controversial or contentious or potentially biased. Readers can click on the citation to see the author names. When there is only a single author, it is not too harmful to display the author name. But three is annoying (absent bias/controversy). Consider omitting the names here, or using only last names; or only the primary author.
  • Fixed. –VWF
• Word use? "...even though their literal accuracy cannot ..." Not sure the word "literal" is required here, or - if some qualifier to "accuracy" is requried - that "literal" is the best qualifier.
  • Removed. –VWF
• That's all I have for now. Great article! Ping me when you have considered the above. Noleander (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Noleander Thank you for your insightful review. I replied above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Article is looking pretty good. I'm not finding too much that needs improvement. Following up on a thought above: Can the article include some brief overview information in the Background section so readers unfamiliar with Africa can get oriented. Such as:
  • What is the kingdom?
  • When did the kingdom exist?
  • Where is it in modern Africa?
  • What is the big-picture situation at the time of Ohen (is it a time of warfare? of peace? of growth?)

The goal is to help lay readers understand where, when, why and how Ohen lived. Noleander (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Noleander In addition to the current footnote I have which says The Kingdom of Benin no longer exists as a governing entity, but the Oba of Benin still rules a tribal kingdom and holds an advisory role in the government of Benin City, Nigeria. I want to add the following... is this sufficient?

The Kingdom of Benin was a polity centred on Benin City and comprising the capital and several hundred villages. Benin City lay in the forest zone west of the Niger River, in what is now southern Nigeria's Edo State. Its early chronology is uncertain, as traditions relating to the period before Portuguese contact lack written documentation. British forces captured Benin City in 1897. Before the Portuguese first visited Benin in 1485, Benin City was already the centre of a large and structurally complex political entity. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good start. In addition to that, is it possible to add a sentence or 2 that gives a summary of what the kingdom was like in the 14th century. Prosperity: Rich/poor? Nature of food production: Agricultural? farming? Herding? Relations with neighbors: wars? peace? isolated? Size: Number of people in the kingdom? Events: any major events in that century: wars? famine? explorations? natural disasters?

Anything that paints a picture so readers can place Ohen in context: what kind of nation was he leading? How did that nation interact with neighbors & the outside world? Noleander (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Noleander I have added what I was able to come up with to the background. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• The "Reign" section begins "After about twenty‑five years on the throne, Ohen became paralysed in his legs. ..." That is an odd sentence to choose for the start of the "Reign" section. What happened in the first 25 years? Noleander (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  • @Noleander This is what Ohen is mostly known for, there's no source that covers anything prior to the paralysis. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

    Then the article should say that. Do the sources talk about the gap? Find what the sources say then paraphrase, e.g. "Little is known of the first 25 years of Ohen's reign. Records only begin to document his reign around the time of ..." or whatever the sources say. Noleander (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

    @Noleander For example, Egharevba just says Ohen, the third son of Oguola, succeeded Udagbedo. He was a handsome and intelligent man. After he had reigned for about twenty-five years he became paralysed in his legs, you see? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

    Okay. But if all the sources are silent about the first 25 years, then it is okay for the editor (you) to write in the encyclopedia's voice "Little is known of the first 25 years of Ohen's reign." And readers will greatly benefit from such a statement. Noleander (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

    @Noleander Done, with thanks! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support based on prose and MOS. I have not done a source check or image check. The coverage of the article is a bit skimpy on details, but that is probably due to the fact that events were in the 1300s and most of the historical record is oral rather than written. In that situation, a shortage of details is understandable, and is not a barrier to achieving FA status. Noleander (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Comments to follow. MSincccc (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Background and accession

• We could delink Nigeria, as for most countries.
  • Done. –VWF
• Consider linking to Earthworks (archaeology).
  • Done. –VWF
• Traditions concerning Ohen describe a political setting formed by dynastic consolidation and tensions involving the Ogiamiẹn lineage.
  • Any way in which we can know more about the Ogiamiẹn lineage?
    • Added footnote. –VWF

Reign

• We could link to kaolin and regalia.
  • Done. –VWF
• "A similar version by Curnow" → "A similar version by Kathy Curnow"
  • Full name on first mention.
    • Done. –VWF
• Mudfish-legged royal figures appear on Benin plaques, carved ivory tusks, and other royal arts, and their
  • Drop the comma after "ivory tusks"?
    • Done. –VWF
• "remove him after they left" → "remove him after they had left"
  • Done. –VWF
• "Academics Osarhiemen et al similarly noted that" → "Osarhiemen et al similarly noted that"
  • Done. –VWF
• "Urhonigbe is a town about 60 miles away from Benin City." → "Urhonigbe is a town about 60 miles from Benin City."

MSincccc (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Legends and oral traditions

• We could link to archivist and lappets.
  • Done. –VWF

Succession and legacy

• Traditions state that Egbeka fought civil wars against the Uzama Nihinron ('kingmakers') and was regarded as ineffective in governance.
  • Do we know anything about the number of wars that were fought? No worries, if not though.
    • Not really. –VWF

Lead

• None except stylistic suggestions.

Bottom line

• Vanderwaalforces That's all from me. Feel free to ping if there are any further additions to the prose. Best, MSincccc (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  @MSincccc Thank you for looking and for the feedback. I have sorted your comments out and replied above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Vanderwaalforces Thanks for your responses. A well-crafted article. I will support the nomination. MSincccc (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review – pass

• Images are relevant and enhance the article.
• Brooklyn Museum 56.6.72 Human Figure with Mudfish legs.jpg in the infobox has a relevant CC license and alt entry for accessibility.
• Nigeria, regno del benin, edo, zanna per altare reale, 1810 ca. 03.jpg has a relevant PD license and US tag and alt entry for accessibility.
• Plaque-figurative-aura-x-02-09.jpg has a relevant PD license and US tag and alt entry for accessibility.
• Altar Bell - Fish-Legged King - Front - Benin Empire.jpg has a relevant CC PD license and alt entry for accessibility.
• There are no image of the subject, which is likely to be rare, as noted by Noleander, by the the fact that events were in the 1300s and most of the historical record is oral. Are there any available? simongraham (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Simongraham Thank you so much! It’s been a while :) anyway, yeah it’s mostly those plaques and brass-cast that are available. I am so convinced though that the royal palace might have useful images but I wonder when or if I’ll ever visit. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Vanderwaalforces: Now, that would be interesting! The museums locally are fascinating. In lieu of that, I am happy to pass the image review. simongraham (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Gommeh

Support as GA reviewer. I am no expert on African history, but from what I can see the article is largely the same as when I reviewed it for GA. I have no issues with this. Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 15:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Source review – pass

Placeholder, the review will be done in the following days.A.Cython(talk) 22:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I was invited by the nominator to do a source review of the current article. This is my second source review, so any comments are welcomed.

The article has 59 citations.

I will start with some comments and then proceed with a spot check:

• Bradbury, Robert Elwyn (2017) mv wikilink (author and publisher) to the first instance
  • Done. –VWF

Spot check:

• #3 Bradbury 2018, p. 7 Checks out, using the 1973 edition, note that the source provides the distance from the river, perhaps this is a useful information to the reader.
• #7 Bradbury 2017, p. 14 Checks out
• #12 Egharevba 1968, p. 12 Checks out
• #16 Layiwola 2003, p. 55 Checks out
• #19a Ben-Amos 1978, p. 49 The story checks out but I failed to see the point of The version then returns to the wider Ohen tradition, personally I do not think it adds much.
  • The version then returns to the wider Ohen tradition in which the Iyase investigated the king's condition, was executed, and was later avenged by chiefs who later killed Ohen.[19]
    The Iyase grew suspicious of Ohen's council practices and hid in the chamber to investigate.[13] When discovered, he was executed on Ohen's orders I find this redundant, it felt like Déjà vu.
    • I think it depends on the viewpoint you're reading it from; I had to summarise that there instead of telling a story I already told. What I mean is, I couldn't have possibly stopped at explaining why the king had stopped visiting. and went straight to The Iyase grew suspicious of Ohen's council practices. It will leave the former trailing and missing context somehow. –VWF
      • [AC] Well, I was reading from the perspective of Ben-Amos 1978, p. 49 which provides it as a single story. I am not going to pontificate here, given that the other editors did not raise a flag here. I will assume good faith.
• #19b Ben-Amos 1978, p. 49 Checks out
• #25 Egharevba 1968, p. 13 Checks out
• #27 Soppelsa 1996, p. 47 Checks out, with some issues:
  • Robert Thomas Soppelsa described the mudfish-legged figure within the "linked supporting triad" as a motif that combined royal authority, spiritual power, elite support, and political restraint. The source presents the quote being told by Barbara Blackmun, but here it reads as if Robert Thomas Soppelsa said it.
    • I have reatrributed this and did a bit of tweak to fit in. –VWF
      • [AC] thanks
  • The central figure has been interpreted as Ohen, as Olokun supported by other deities, as Ohen supported by Olokun and Osanobua, as the Oba supported by the Edaiken ('crown prince') and the Ezomo,[c] or as the Oba supported by the high priests Osa and Osuan. I have hard time following this sentence, consider rewrite. Also the source has the names of the priests as osa and osuan.
    • I have broken it into two parts for easy flow. –VWF
      • [AC] thanks, it reads better
• #34 Ben-Amos 1978, p. 50 Checks out
• #37 Ben-Amos 1978, p. 51 Checks out
• #42 Curnow 2017, p. 27 Checks out
• #46 Curnow 2017, p. 21-22 I do not see this conclusion, share a quote
  • Curnow writes on p. 22: One explicitly linked the lover, paralysis, the masquerade, and Ogun's birth to 'the dispute that will never be settled'. She then explains that the Ẹkiokpagha Treaty prohibited marriage between the royal and Ogiamiẹn families and that Ohen sought such a marriage because he believed it would settle the dispute and questions concerning his dynastic rule. I have just revised the sentence to follow the source more precisely and closely. –VWF
    • [AC] Got it.
• #51 Curnow 2017, p. 25 Checks out
• #57 Curnow 2017, p. 26 Checks outA.Cython(talk) 05:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  @A.Cython: Thank you so much for finding time to look at this. I have replied above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@A.Cython again, I wonder if the previous one worked or I'm tripping, lol. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I will read it one time tonight, sorry for being slow. A.Cython(talk) 18:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for making the changes, I am happy to Support. A.Cython(talk) 23:31, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi AC, thank you for completing the spotcheck of sources -- this is not required for every nom except first-timers, but is always welcome. What is required for every nom is a source review for reliability and formatting -- are you signing off on that as well as the spotcheck? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Ian Rose Yes, unless of course I missed something. I will be more explicit on this check next time. If I missed something please let me know as this is educational for me. Thank you. A.Cython(talk) 01:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Metalicat

Have conducted a quick sweep of typos. Reviewing prose, plus one citation-placement issue I noticed. The article is very detailed and the structure is easy to follow. A few points:

• Tunnelling section: the same Australian article, Rail link to cause 'many months' of traffic delays, appears to be cited twice in a row after the same sentence. One of those duplicate refs can be removed.
  • Done, I've replaced it with another reference.
• Construction section: the sentence ending responsible for rail expansion, appears to need a full stop rather than a comma before the citation, as "The eight packages were:" starts a new sentence.
  • Done.
• Lead: it says the Mandurah line was divided into seven major contract packages, while the body says construction was divided into eight packages and then lists packages A to H. I can see how this may reconcile, as package H was minor works, but it may be worth making explicit so the reader does not pause over it.
  • I've replaced "seven major contract packages" with "eight contract packages".
• Cost escalations and opening: The first train south of the Narrows Bridge, a test train ran between Perth and Rockingham, ran on 9 November 2007.. This sentence is awkward because the middle clause has its own verb. Something like "The first train south of the Narrows Bridge, a test train running between Perth and Rockingham, ran on 9 November 2007" would fix it.
  • Fixed.
• Patronage section: the sentence saying patronage reached a record high of 23,075,517 in 2024–25 cites a 25 August 2024 press release. That source cannot itself support a completed 2024–25 financial-year figure. The PTA patronage source may support the figure, but the 2024 press release should either be removed from that sentence or moved to a claim it can support.
  • I've removed that ref entirely as is an adequate source.

Metalicat (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks User:Metalicat. I intended on the structure being easy to follow! Steelkamp (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Support on prose and the Manual of Style - criteria 1a and 2. Metalicat (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size
  • Removed.
• File:Mandurah_stn_Mandurah_line_plaque_(cropped).jpg: reproduction of a 2D work doesn't typically garner a new copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • The plaque consists primarily of a short factual inscription and simple typographic arrangement, which I do not believe reaches the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. The fact that Commons has an entire category tree for plaques indicates to me that images of plaques are accepted. Steelkamp (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

    I don't disagree, but the current tagging doesn't make sense with that explanation. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

    I've added PD-text, which I think is the correct tag. Steelkamp (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

VWF

Taking this spot, review comments incoming. I have an FAC nom and would appreciate if you could take a look too, ty! –VWF

• I see <!-- Some sources say 24,950 or 25,000, but this seems to be boardings in one direction --> and <!-- Sigl and Yamazaki give a date of 5 June 2006, but that is clearly wrong due to media reports at the time --> in the wikitext… Even though readers do not normally see them, the article should not privately decide that one source is "clearly wrong" or infer why figures differ without a source explaining the discrepancy. For the tunnel date, I believe you should either find a source that reconciles the dates or write neutrally like "Sigl and Yamazaki date the breakthrough to 5 June 2006, while contemporary news reports described it as occurring on 3 June.", and for the patronage forecast, distinguish the metrics only where a source does so. Like "Contemporary reports gave forecasts ranging from approximately 25,000 passengers to 50,000 boarding movements per weekday."
  • As for the number of boardings per weekday, the sources from 2006 and 2007 (especially sources from when the line opened) all say 50,000, and it's only earlier sources that say 25,000, so I think its appropriate to use the later figure.
  • As for the tunnel date, multiple sources from at the time verify that it happened on 3 June, which outweighs the one later source.
• The article is mostly careful to call the A$1.725 billion figure the cost of New MetroRail, but the surrounding discussion sometimes blurs that project with the Mandurah line. For instance the line was part of a broader programme that also included the Clarkson extension and the Thornlie line. The article should not imply that the full A$1.725 billion was solely the Mandurah line's construction cost.

• The contract-package table compounds this problem. The column heading is simply "Value", but the values appear to represent different things. Let's say Package F for example, it is shown as A$324.5 million but the later prose says the City Project ultimately cost A$439.3 million excluding legal fees. Also, Package E is listed at A$105 million, while the body says its signed contract was A$99 million, although I see the explanation for the later figure in the footnote.
  • For each package value given in that table, its referring to the original value at the time contracts were awarded. Unfortunately, there isn't a comprehensive source on how much each package went over budget.
• Instead of "Value", you could use "Original contract value" or "Reported package value at award", then of course explain deviations in the prose or via notes.
  • Changed the column heading to "original value". I've addressed the individual package deviations where possible, although the sources don't allow for all cost overruns to be allocated to each package, so the cost overruns are discussed more generally within the "Cost escalations and opening" section.
• Package H should not have a blank value cell, maybe use "Not separately reported" or an {{em dash}} and maybe with a note.
  • Done.

• When I read this "The Mandurah line, also known as the Southern Suburbs Railway or the South West Metropolitan Railway …", they sound like current alternative names, they are not, instead they are primarily planning and construction names. Why not say "The Mandurah line, known during planning and construction as the South West Metropolitan Railway and Southern Suburbs Railway, is …"?
  • Done.
• Re "Early planning for the Mandurah line began in 1989 during planning for the Yanchep line.", In the body of the article, the line is correctly identified as the Northern Suburbs Railway, later the Joondalup line and then the Yanchep line. The lead should use this historical terms correctly too, like so … "Early planning began in 1989, during planning for the Northern Suburbs Railway, now the Yanchep line."
  • I used the current name of the Yanchep line in the lead because the lead should summarise the rest of the article and not go into too much detail. I don't want the lead to get too long, particularly on minor details like the name of another line.
• Re the patronage claim, why not be more exact. Instead of "The line's patronage has significantly exceeded expectations … making it the busiest Transperth railway line.", why not "Early patronage exceeded pre-opening forecasts. The line recorded 23,075,517 boardings in the year to June 2025." I believe you should anyhow retain "busiest Transperth railway line" only if a current PTA source compares all the lines somehow directly.
  • Ok, I've reworded along these lines. I think this source should be sufficient to say the Mandurah line is the busiest Transperth railway line.

[more comments to come] --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Re "By 2000, the Labor Party, not wanting to appear too critical, was in favour of the Kenwick route.", I honestly consider this an interpretation of political strategy. It should either be attributed to the newspaper source or rewritten neutrally as "By 2000, the Labor Party had moderated its opposition to the Kenwick route." or something like that.
  • A direct quote of the source is "Rockingham MP Mark McGowan was previously opposed to taking the rail through Kenwick instead of Fremantle. He said yesterday Labor had nevertheless supported the rail plan because the public got sick of an Opposition that was always critical." I've reworded a bit so that the article attributes this to McGowan.
• The {{commons}} template is usually placed at an "Externa links" section.
  • There's no external links section, so I've moved it to the last section of the page as per MOS:LAYOUTEL, which says "If the article does not already have an "External links" section, then you may choose whether to place larger sister link(s) (such as {{Sister project links}} or {{Commons category}}) in whatever the last section is (usually "References"), or to create an "External links" section and use the less common inline form of these templates."
• Use currency consistently. I can see that the lead identifies the currency as Australian dollars, but much of the body uses an unqualified $, so use A$ consistently where ambiguity is possible.
  • I'm following MOS:$, which says "In general, the first mention of a particular currency should use its full, unambiguous signifier (e.g. A$52), with subsequent references using just the appropriate symbol (e.g. $88), unless this would be unclear".

This is a well-researched article, I must say. Thanks for a job well done as that would be all from me :) --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Vanderwaalforces! I've addressed everything. Steelkamp (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

This absolutely looks good to me, so I am happy to support promotion based on my evaluation of prose quality, comprehensiveness, length/focus, neutrality and structure. Well done, Steelkamp. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

If you're able to, I would appreciate you looking at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ewuare/archive1 :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hurricanehink

I knew this line sounded familiar. Well, since I have an FAC of my own, I might as well review this.

Lead

• I suggest moving "known during planning and construction as the Southern Suburbs Railway or the South West Metropolitan Railway" to a second sentence, unless these terms are still used nowadays. Otherwise, there is too much info in the first sentence.
  • Done.
• "Originally planned to open between Perth and Warnbro station in 2006 and between Warnbro and Mandurah in 2007, the tunnel opened on 15 October 2007 and the rest of the line opened on 23 December 2007." - this is also a lot for one sentence because of the number of dates involved. But only two of them are relevant (when it actually opened). Are the originally planned dates vital in the lead?
  • I think its important to show that the opening was late. But just saying something like "the tunnel opened on 15 October 2007 and the rest of the line opened on 23 December 2007, one year late" would be incomplete, because the line to Mandurah was planned to open in 2007 but to Warnbro in 2006, so its partially late.
• "23,075,517 boardings" - make sure all numbers are connected with their items with a nonbreaking space:  
  • I don't think that's needed. MOS:NBSP doesn't give that or something similar as an example, and I don't think this is a case where "breaking across lines might be confusing or awkward".

History

• "In February 1989, ahead of that year's state election and amidst planning for the Northern Suburbs Railway, now known as the Yanchep line, the government of Western Australia announced it was investigating the building of a railway line from Perth to Rockingham or Mandurah." - clunky and lengthy. I suggest splitting into two sentences
  • Done.
• South West Area Transit (SWAT) Steering Committee - is this your acronym, or was it in usage in documents? The reason I ask, why not just call it the SWATSC? I notice you subsequently say "the SWAT Steering Committee" two more times. Is that to make sure that you want the readers to know it's a committee and not some nameless bureaucrats?
  • Sources use SWAT as an acronym, and not SWATSC. See (use ctrl f).
• "$941 million" - somewhere you should have a note that indicates that all monetary figures are in Australian dollars, unadjusted for inflation
  • Done.
• The map for the proposed routes in Rockingham should indicate the color, because depending what way you look at the map, "left" could refer to two different routes
  • Done.
• Since the Williams Street tunnel has its own article, the "Tunnelling" could be a bit shorter by skipping the projected opening dates. Also, the text is sandwiched between the left and right side, so you should probably remove one of the pics there.
  • I've moved the image to the right. As for the opening dates, i'm not sure what opening dates you're referring to.
• "A later source says the cost of Package E was $105 million." - "says" should either be "reported" or something more neutral, also past tense.
  • Done both.
• "The new bridge opened on 22–23 January 2006, allowing work on the rail corridor to begin on the original bridge. The new bridge is 15 metres (49 ft) wide and 660 metres (2,170 ft) long, and was constructed using the incremental launch method." - can you rewrite the second sentence so you don't have two consecutive sentences starting with "the new bridge"?
  • Done. I've swapped the sentences around and reworded slightly.
• "Cockburn Central, Kwinana, Wellard and Mandurah stations reached practical completion in January or February 2007, Rockingham and Warnbro stations reached practical completion in March or April, and Canning Bridge, Bull Creek and Murdoch stations reached practical completion in June 2007." - could you avoid saying "practical completion" three times in the same sentence?
  • Done.
• You should abbreviate "kilometres" after the 2nd usage, all throughout the article. Same with "kilometres per hour"
  • Done.
• Are there any plans for further extensions?
  • No, there are not. Mandurah station was not designed for any future extension and a new station would have to be built there if so. The master plan did not say anything about future extensions, and the Perth and Peel @ 3.5 million plan (pdf page 37), released in 2018, does not say anything about an extension to the Mandurah line.

Service

• "From 2031, peak frequencies on the Mandurah line are planned to reach 18 trains per hour, which will be made possible by C-series trains having three doors per car, which reduces dwell times compared to B-series trains, and the communications-based train control signalling upgrade." - too long, please split into two sentences
  • Done.
• "The busiest stations on the Mandurah line as of 2013–14" - what about something this decade? Or are post-COVID figures skewing the numbers?
  • Unfortunately, there isn't a routine release of what the busiest stations are, so I have to make do with whatever sources I can find, which are and .

The article was an easy read, and looks to be in good shape. I doubt you'll have any issues, but lemme know if you have any questions about my review. Cheers! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing @Hurricanehink:! I've responded to everything. Steelkamp (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate the timely replies and fixes. Support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Source review

Sources seem reliable and consistently formatted. It seems like the rather large proportion of dependent sources is used correctly, so pass on that too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Image review

• File:Ivan_the_Terrible,_Part_I_(1944)_by_Sergei_Eisenstein.webm: could you elaborate on why this is believed to be PD? This description would seem to suggest the copyright would have been extended. Ditto the stills from the film.
  • I'm afraid I don't quite follow. What you have linked says that works made by individuals who died before 1952 are in the public domain in Russia. The author (Eisenstein) died before 1952, making his works public domain in Russia. If I am not mistaken, Part I specifically (unclear about Part II) should be in public domain in the US because it was in public domain in Russia on the URAA date ("The work is non-amateur cinema or television film (or shot, or fragment from it), which was first shown between January 1, 1929 and January 1, 1946." Part I premiered in 1945.). I have been careful to only use stills from Part I.
    • I'm referring specifically to the note at the bottom of the section: "Before 2008 Russian copyright legislation was based on the Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (1993)[4] and copyright term was 50(54) years. In 2004 copyright term was extended to 70(74) years non-retroactively, and then in 2008 70(74) years term became retroactive (if 50 years term had not been expired till January 1, 1993)." Eisenstein died in 1948, so copyright would not have expired before 1993, and therefore this wording suggests the term would have been extended. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

      • I don't have experience with this so I do need to ask a few questions.

        1) Do I understand the retroactive copyright correctly as meaning that it counts from 74 years from Eisenstein's death? If so, then Eisenstein's works entered public domain in Russia in 2022. (Although I guess that's not relevant for the US status.)

        2) Would the 2008 Russian law affect the URAA status? In 1996 it was public domain in Russia and therefore it was in public domain in the US as well (non-amateur cinema or television film (or shot, or fragment from it), which was first shown between January 1, 1929 and January 1, 1946.") Would the status in the US change based on the Russian law? Jaguarnik (talk) 09:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• File:Sergei_Eisenstein_02.jpg: why is the tagging Russian when the given source is Dutch?
  • I'm not certain this is a Dutch photo, just stored in a Dutch archive, but because the origins of the photo are obscure, I would not know. The autotranslate tells me that the archive considers the photo to not be under copyright/royalty-free. I could replace the photo with a different photo of Eisenstein if this photo is problematic to use. I've switched the license per Howardcorn33's comment.

• File:Queen_Elizabeth_and_the_young_Blount.jpg: what is the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Per the license, "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States." The drawing itself is in public domain in Russia, because works made by individuals who died before 1952 are in the public domain.
    • The photo does not garner a new copyright in the US, but what is the status of the original work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

      • I believe it would fall under unpublished before 2003, so copyrighted for 70 years after author death (1948). I have added the license "PD-US-unpublished" to reflect this. Jaguarnik (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Support by Jon698

Oooh, I would love to comment on this one. I once owned it on VHS. Jon698 (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• 1. "falsely accused of killing a gentile boy" -> Could Gentile be wikilinked
  • Done
• 2. "behalf a film about the Russian tsar Ivan IV" -> Optional stylistic choice, wikilink Ivan the Terrible as this is his first mention outside of the lede and plot
  • Done
• 3. "Stalin admired Ivan IV" + "Eisenstein's Alexander Nevsky, to play Ivan IV" + "According to the story, Ivan IV invited Fyodorov-Chelyadnin" + "While Soviet historians ignored religion in the life of Ivan IV or, in the case of Robert Wipper, describe the Church as an ally of Ivan IV" + "criticizing the characterization of Ivan IV" + "and the "conspicuously totalitarian" depiction of Ivan IV." -> Remove regnal number as is done for all of the other mentions of Ivan in the article. Keep the first use of Ivan IV in "who instead commissioned on Stalin's behalf a film about the Russian tsar Ivan IV" though.
  • Done
• 4. "Casting for the film began in early 1942. Eisenstein invited Nikolay Cherkasov," -> Wikilink Nikolay Cherkasov as this is his first prose mention
  • Done
• 5. "Mikhail Zharov, who had wanted to perform the role of Kurbsky, was instead offered the role of Malyuta. Mikhail Nazvanov was cast as Kurbsky in the summer of 1942." -> Wikilink Mikhail Zharov and Mikhail Nazvanov as this is their first prose mention. Their other mentions are only in the cast list or image captions
  • Done
• 6. "played the role of Ivan's mother, Elena Glinskaya" -> Wikilink Elena Glinskaya as this is her first prose mention
  • Done
• 7. "Eisenstein wanted his colleague, director Vsevolod Pudovkin," -> Change to "Eisenstein wanted his colleague Pudovkin," as Pudovkin has already been established as a director in paragraph two of the Development section
  • Done
• 8. "Eisenstein began to consider Mikhail Kuznetsov for the role of Fyodor Basmanov" -> Wikilink Mikhail Kuznetsov and Fyodor Basmanov
  • Done for Kuznetsov but not Basmanov, because it is highlighted as a duplicate link (for whatever reason)
• 9. "For the role of Vladimir Staritsky," -> Wikilink Vladimir of Staritsa
  • Not done, it is highlighted as a duplicate link
• 10. "Therefore, Pavel Kadochnikov," -> Wikilink Pavel Kadochnikov
  • Done
• 11. "He was also considered for the role of King Sigismund." -> Wikilink Sigismund II Augustus
  • Not done, it is highlighted as a duplicate link
• 12. "The score for the films was" -> Change was to were
  • Not done, score is singular and "The score were composed" seems gramatically incorrect. I did change "films" to "film" however, it is one film project.
• 13. This is a general comment across the article. Whenever a film is mentioned you should include (year of release) afterwards. See Aliens (film), The Shawshank Redemption, and Raiders of the Lost Ark
  • Added dates for Mashenka, Defense of Tsaritsyn, Battleship Potemkin and Bicycle Thieves, I will go back and add dates for other films in the article.
    • All films mentioned in the article have a date now. If I've missed any, please let me know.
• 14. "and began to consider hiring him" -> Change to "and considered hiring him"
  • Done
• 15. "Most of the production was shot in Kazakhstan" -> wikilink Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic
  • Done
• 16. You should change "writes" to "wrote" as some of the subjects are dead or it will future proof it for when they die.
  • Changed instances of writes and other similar words to wrote
• 17. "The film also meant to show Estonians and Latvians fighting" -> wikilink Estonians and Latvians
  • Done
• 18. "describe the Church as an ally of Ivan, Eisenstein depicts the church as traitorous" -> Church should either be capitalized or uncapitalized
  • Capitalized
• Will continue with Release section
• "and more emphasis on Ivan's accomplishments as Tsar." -> Make Tsar lowercase
  • Done.
• This is just a stylistic choice. Could "Part I was screened for Stalin in December 1944 and premiered in Moscow on 16 January 1945." be the start of a new paragraph. The first paragraph would focus on the negative feedback from the Committee on Cinema Affairs while the second paragraph would focus on Stalin's support for it and the awards for the film.
  • That works. It might also be easier for readers to read two smaller paragraphs, rather than one large paragraph.
• "Afterwards, despite receiving permission to revise Part II and begin work on Part III, Eisenstein did not work further on the film." -> Could this be rephrased to " Eisenstein did not work further on the film despite receiving permission to revise Part II and begin work on Part III." so that it flows more naturally
  • Done
• "A year later, on the night of 10–11 February 1948, he died of a heart attack." -> Rephrase to "Eisenstein died of a heart attack on the night of 10–11 February 1948."
  • Done
• "called the first part a "masterpiece of cinematographic art"" -> Change "first part" to "Part I" for consistency
  • Oh, I had planned to change that, but forgot. Done.
• "Charlie Chaplin in 1946 called Part I "the greatest historic film that has ever been made"" -> Can this be the start of a new paragraph as this sentence and the following are the opinions of filmmakers while the previous ones are from critics
  • Done
• Those are all of my comments
  • I think I've addressed all comments, please let me know if I've missed anything.Jaguarnik (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Support by Paleface Jack

Support: I have been watching this article for a while and have recently looked it over. Apart from minor copy editing issues, the article meets FA standards. Great job. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Support by ErnestKrause

Looks like an interesting nomination which I'll try to comment on during the next few days. Some items to get things started:

(1) The part 2 summary seems to suggest that much of the footage for part 3 was already prepared and ready for editing; how much is known about the details of what was left on the cutting room floor. How much unused footage remained after part 2 was released. Was it 10 minutes of used film, 20 minutes of unused film clips, or 30 minutes of unused film clips?

There are some screen tests remaining for Part III, maybe some footage, however filming was not complete. From what I remember sources don't comment on how much footage exactly was cut from the completed film, only that certain scenes had to be removed (which I've mentioned).

The deleted scenes which survive are included in the Criterion home release as special features. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

One of the Neuberger sources does indeed confirm that some footage of Part III survives (although other footage was destroyed). I have added a clarification to the article.Jaguarnik (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Some of the Ivan 3 footage and related: and here . ErnestKrause (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

(2) The article mentions that complete film script was available. Was the 'complete' film script for part 1 only or for parts 1 and 2 and 3?

A published screenplay exists for all three parts, however the completed film departs in significant ways from the screenplay.

(3) Home media. This does not seem to be covered in the article. Multiple countries has done multiple editions for it. Has Criterion done a version of it? Have they done a Blu-ray version or 4K version? Not to mention the special features and all of the commentaries about the film which have been done over the years...

None of my sources comment on home media versions, and I strive only to use secondary sources. I have found that Criterion has done a version of it. There is also a Blu-ray version, and a VHS version, as Jon698 commented. However, I see in featured articles about films, such as Raiders of the Lost Ark and Fight Club, that they use secondary sources to comment on home media (and they have quite extensive sections covering the home media!). For this reason I did not add a home media section, as there is very little coverage and I did not think it would enrich the article.

My understanding here is that interviews from the special features on Criterion releases may be quoted on Wikipedia articles provided that the sources are clearly cited and fully identified. Here is the description from the Criterion collection of contents included which normally ought not to be overlooked: "Special features: disc 1: multimedia esay by Joan Neuberger; deleted scenes; drawings and production stills. Disc 2: multimedia essay on Eisenstein's visual vocabulary by Yuri Tsivian; new English subtitle translation." ErnestKrause (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have access to these interviews, so there is no way for me to cite them. Jaguarnik (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are editing from USA or abroad, though its worth stating that the Criterion edition of this film is frequently available in local public libraries for free, or, they can often readily get a copy through inter-library loans for you at little or no cost. Here is the Neuberger essay: . Here is a clip from Bordwell from the Criterion edition: . Last half of this Neuberger interview is on Ivan here: . ErnestKrause (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources. I've seen the Neuberger essay. Everything written in that essay is explored in more depth in the Neuberger book This Thing of Darkness, so I haven't used it. The Criterion clip also doesn't state much of anything that isn't in the article already. The interview from Neuberger did have a fact also mentioned in This Thing of Darkness, so I've added it. Jaguarnik (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a way around a Home media section needing to be added to the article. See multiple Russian films on Wikipedia for examples: Andrei Rublev, Dersu Uzala, etc. Aside from the Criterion edition of Ivan, here is another one: "Ivan Groznyĭ (Motion picture). Part 1. / Иван Грозный (Motion picture). Part 1. Publisher, Date: Chatsworth, California : Image Entertainment, [1998], ©1998". Part 2 was released from the same publisher in the same year. A Home media section is needed in the article; there have been multiple releases. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't agree that it's a barrier to featured article status. Certain other featured film articles also do not have a home media section: The Cat and the Canary (1927 film), Persuasion (1995 film), Into Temptation (film) (2009), Greed (1924 film). I've also looked at the Andrei Rublev home media section and found it lacking, as it uses primary sources and it is preferred to use secondary sources.

However, I have found two articles from Cinéaste and Video Store Magazine covering the Criterion release on DVD. This is not enough for its own home media section, but I did combine it with the 2015 restoration as a section called "Other releases". Hopefully this is an OK compromise. Jaguarnik (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It looks like a good idea and the two sources you find are useful. Try to bring it into the article once you can pull the prose together. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Added the prose and sources into the article. Let me know if it seems OK. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

(4) The legacy of the film. It seems that major film directors have been influenced by the film and they have given interviews adn commentaries about it. Who are they and how extensive were their comments and interviews? What about other films that have picked up on the Tsar Ivan theme(s). It seems that there have even been comedic versions made indicating its very broad appeal at all cultural levels; isn't there a film with Ben Stiller having a confrontation with Ivan somewhere?

I've looked for sources covering the influence of Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible, but unfortunately there aren't really any sources covering the cultural impact/influence of the film. The few sources I found mention influence in passing and do not go into deeper detail. The directors' names are already in the article and they don't really go into depth on the influence that the film had on them, with the exception of mentioning that Tarkovsky and Askoldov's films have a few sequences that may reference Eisenstein's film. (There's also an interesting anecdote from former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams that Ivan the Terrible inspired his interest in Russia, but I couldn't find a way to include it in the article.) I'm afraid I don't know the Ben Stiller film you mention, but Ivan the Terrible by himself is a well-known historical figure and it's possible Eisenstein's film didn't have any influence on that film + any other films with Ivan.

Scorsese and other seem to have done interviews; more later in the week-end perhaps. You may get a jolt if you can watch the clip from Ben Stiller in his Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian, with special note for the scene when Ivan considers making a name change for himself among his fellow conspirators. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

From what I remember, Scorcese said that he's inspired by Eisenstein's theories, but never mentions Ivan specifically.Jaguarnik (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Scorsese writes the foreword to this 2017 book title Eisenstein on Paper here: . ErnestKrause (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

From what I can tell in that foreword Scorsese does not directly mention Ivan the Terrible, only that Eisenstein himself was one of the great filmmakers. Jaguarnik (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to check Orson Welles and S. Zizek on this question of influences as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Apparently Welles was cold towards the film. I haven't been able to access the full review from Welles, but in his review for the film he wrote "What's wrong with the film, when it's wrong, is what goes sour in the work of any artist whose bent is for eloquence. The Tsar's beard, for instance, cutting like a mighty sickle through the hammer blows of the drama, isn't nearly as entertaining to the audience as it was to the director." Eisenstein was apparently quite offended by the review and wrote to him in response "Although I had an opportunity not to enjoy your nasty and somewhat “Kane”ish (and I read it: “Cain”ish) survey of the first part of “Ivan the Terrible,” I still bear the warmest sympathy towards your "citizen"... I just completed the shooting of part two of "Ivan the Terrible" — which will give you another opportunity for some lousy scribbling." (Sergei Kapterev, Sergei Eisenstein's letters to Hollywood film-makers) I didn't include it, because I don't have full access to the review and I felt that quoting every single individual's opinion on the film would be unnecessary.

I did, however, manage to find that Peter Greenaway and Volker Schlöndorff, both acclaimed directors in their own right, listed it in their top 10 films of all time, so I added that to the article. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Just checked Zizek. Apparently in 2002 for Sight and Sound he named Ivan the Terrible as one of his top ten films of all time. However, I do not know if his inclusion in the article will enrich it, as he is neither a director nor a film critic. I do not think it is a good idea to list every single famous person who likes Ivan the Terrible (for example, I did not list the former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, even though he also likes the film). But I will wait for your opinion.Jaguarnik (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Zizek is considered by quite a few film scholars to be the foremost living Lacanian film critic and a professor of philosophy. His opinions are notable for film theory. Here is a link you might like to look at which mentions Ivan as a top 3 film . Interestingly, it looks like the Wikipedia article for Zizek does not mention Ivan; possibly they are using a different year for the Sight and Sound lists, which should be updated. Zizek has written 2-3 books (for example here ) about film theory and I'm thinking that it might be possible to find a chapter by him where he discusses Ivan. Separately, you might find useful this link useful about the ties to Stalin here: . Clicking the 'read sample' tab on that book link will allow you to see the Intro and the interesting TOC. Separately again, the Welles-Eisenstein exchange you present above is remarkable; could you put it into a short form to be placed in the article (how many people know that Welles had an exchange of opinion with Eisenstein on Ivan). More later. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't really say that Welles had an exchange of opinion with Eisenstein on Ivan, more that Eisenstein wrote a letter to Welles (the article doesn't indicate whether there was a response or not).

I've searched for more analysis from Zizek of Ivan the Terrible but my access to the sources from Zizek are limited, I'm afraid. I will add him as an admirer of Ivan to the article.

I did read the chapter from Stalinism and Soviet Cinema but as I've said below, the source restates most of what is already in the article.Jaguarnik (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

(5) Your citations seem thorough and I'm wanting to ask if you have been using Google translators for 'reading' the Russian books and citations about this film that are in the references section?

Russian is my native language, so I read them myself. When using direct (translated) quotations, I leave the original quote in the citation for verification. If any questions arise here about content from the Russian sources, I can provide specific pages and the Russian text. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

This is Ivan in pop culture at the level of the comedic: . ErnestKrause (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

That should get things started. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

From the technical literature, mostly available on-line:

(1) A Comparative Study of the Coronation Sequence in Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible and the Semiotics of Pier Wollen and Roland Barthes, IJASS JOURNAL, 2024.

(2) L. Kozlov, The Artist and the Shadow of Ivan [w:] Stalinism and Soviet Cinema, eds. R. Taylor, D.W. Spring, London–New York 1993, s. 110.

(3) Kevin Platt. “Allegories of Stalinist Historiography: Eisenstein’s Ivan the Terrible.” Ab Imperio. No. 4 (2007). 293-322.

(4) Roundtable Discussion: This Thing of Darkness: Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible in Stalin's Russia by Joan Neuberger (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2019). David Brandenberger. Новейшая история России [Modern Russian History], 2021.

(5) Eisenstein’s Ivan the Terrible, Indeterminacy, and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion, Kevin M. F. Platt, 2021.

(6) Eisenstein’s Ivan the Terrible and the History of Mentalités, Karen Petrone, Modern History of Russia, 2021.

There may be some duplication with your sources; let me know if the links are found from your site. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I will review these sources in the coming days. I did look at #4 and #6, but it is just a review of Neuberger's monograph and doesn't offer any new information, so I have not included it in the article. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Looked at #3. It has some interesting things that I've added to the article. I may add some more from it. #5 has the same problem as 4 and 6, being simply a review of Neuberger's monograph rather than an analysis of the film itself. Jaguarnik (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I am skeptical of #1 because there are some significant errors in the text, for instance "Ivan the Terrible is a two-part epic biographical-style film, with the first part released in 1943... The second part of the film was shelved until 1985 and not allowed to be screened". The article does mention that Barthes used Ivan to illustrate one of his theories, which is interesting, but there's very little helpful information I got from the article. #2 is a fine source, but it mostly restates information which is already in the article. There is a quote from Mikhail Kuznetsov that I find interesting, which I might add in. Jaguarnik (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Source review

"Cronin, Paul (2014). Werner Herzog — A Guide for the Perplexed. Conversations with Paul Cronin. Faber & Faber." is a bit sparse - what is this? Sight and Sound is not consistently formatted, and neither are British Film Institute links. What makes Исскуство and Алетейя reliable sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Искусcтво and Алетейя are the publishers. Iskusstvo was one of the largest Soviet publishers, specializing in the humanitarian disciplines whereas Aleteya is a newer publisher (established 1992) that also specializes in the humanitarian disciplines. I have linked to Iskusstvo Publishing House. however, I can't link Aleteya on the English Wikipedia because it doesn't have an English wiki page. However, I don't quite understand why the publishers are what determine reliability here, when Neya Zorkaya and Viktor Shklovsky are the sources/writers and they are reliable sources + specialists in their field.

The Herzog source is a book with interviews from Herzog. Faber & Faber is the publisher. I will link it. I have also added an archive.org link for verifiability and an ISBN. Is there anything else that should be added here?

As for the Sight and Sound formatting, it is because some of the Sight and Sound sources are in online form on their website, whereas others don't have an online source; additionally, some authors are known and others are not. Where possible, I have added an author and/or a link; where not possible, I have left it as BFI. I have also made sure that every Sight and Sound link is listed with the British Film Institute as publisher. Jaguarnik (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Jo-Jo Eumerus: please let me know if I have sufficiently addressed all issues. Jaguarnik (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

There are many things that can determine reliability and publisher is one of them. Author being reliable can substitute for it, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I have made edits to the article. Does the source review pass, or is there anything that remains to be fixed? Jaguarnik (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

I'm not sure if I'll dig in for a full review ...

Coord note

It looks like we're missing a citation for the statement Although reception initially was mixed, it has been named as one of Eisenstein's best films and one of the greatest films of the 20th century since then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: I don't exactly have a citation for the "one of the greatest film of the 20th century" (just of all time, if we count the Sight and Sound polls that are listed in the body as a citation for that) but I do have citations for it being considered one of Eisenstein's greatest films, so I've added that and modified the sentence to remove "20th century". Jaguarnik (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Cool. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Camilasdandelions

• Before I start the review, there's a red link John Matheson. Will begin an initial review within today Camilasdandelions (✉️) 22:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Yup, deliberate. Redlinks are not prohibited anywhere onwiki

Lead

• "prints that McQueen had been experimenting" -- suggest using "had experimented" here
• "with in the past few seasons." -- what about "previous seasons"

• That implies a broader range across his career, whereas "the past few" makes it clearer that it was specifically only the past couple

• "featuring the sophisticated digitally-engineered prints" -- MOS:HYPHEN: "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb"..

• Done

• "most well-known" -> "best-known"

• Done

• "whether or not it was indicative of McQueen's mental state" -> "whether it indicated McQueen's mental state"

• I've trimmed "or not" but left the rest as-is

Background

• ", spanning 1992–2010" -> "which spanned from 1992 to 2010"

• Yours is longer for no particular benefit

• "been a fucking awful week but my friends have been great but now i have to some how pull myself together and finish with the HELLS ANGELS & PROLIFIC DAEMONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" -- Question, is it fine to violate general MOS in quote box? I would rewrite them, but this case is kinda vague..

• Principle of minimal change suggests we leave it as is: "the wording of the quoted text must be faithfully reproduced". Reformatting this into pristine English would not be a faithful reproduction of McQueen's idiosyncratic style.

• "McQueen's life had been turbulent" -- I think "was" is more stable here since the following sentences are in past tense

• No, I don't think that's correct, since we're talking about the past of the past here

• "insommnia -> "insomnia"

• Typo fixed

Concept and creative process

• Note C needs sources

• Fixed

• "completion.[c][36][10] A complete collection was normally at least thirty." -- imo you'd better connect these sentences since it is read bit awkwardly so try smth like: ".. stages of completion—roughly half the size of a typical thirty-look collection."

• We already have a semi-colon in the sentence, I'd rather keep it separated than have both and four post-sentence notes

• "before; It's a Jungle Out There" -> "before; his Autumn/Winter 1997 collection, It's a Jungle Out There"

• Why though?
  • Because as I know there was no brief explanation of this before. Did I miss something? Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
    • I think a reasonably intelligent reader will be able to understand that Jungle is one of his collections, given that the name immediately follows the clause "He had incorporated paintings into his work before"

• "sophisticated digitally-engineered" -- same as before

• Done

• "Shorter dresses were followed with long draped gowns" -> "Shorter dresses gave way to long draped gowns"

• Style preference; it's fine as-is

Individual ensembles

• "She notes that on the rear of the garment" -- "noted" should be used

• Fixed

• You used past tense for the first look, but not for the Look 3, 4, 5, and so on: "Look 3 is a short dress ..."

• On reflection, I've harmonized all of the descriptions to present tense, rather than past tense; I think this is more in line with MOS:TENSE. Exceptions are info about the runway styling because this refers to a single event in the past.

• "The slightly asymmetrical hem reveals an underskirt of gold-painted duck feathers" -- same as before, past tense should be used
• "It may have been inspired by the royal mantle of Roger II of Sicily." -- So it is inspired or not?

• Critics often speculate as to specific inspirations. McQueen wasn't in the habit of releasing Coles' Notes providing in-depth explanations of every individual thing he was drawing from. I've added the name of the critic here though.

• Past tense should be used:
  • "Look 10 has a double print of the archangel Gabriel mirrored on the front of the dress, with the angel's wings wrapping around to the back of the dress, where loose folds of fabric also evoke wings."
  • "Look 12 has a chiffon skirt"
  • "Look 13 is a white"
  • "Look 14 is a full-length"
  • "Look 15 has a black long"
  • "best-known look from the collection is the last"
• "vertically-ruched" -- same as before

• Fixed

• "The ensemble may have been a reference to the gold and white palette of McQueen's first haute couture collection for Givenchy, The Search for the Golden Fleece (Spring/Summer 1997)." Can you be more clarifying on this? They have been a reference or not?

• As I said previously, sometimes these things are speculative. McQueen was in the habit of being self-referential, so it's entirely likely he was glancing back.

• Red link: The Search for the Golden Fleece

• Not prohibited, as noted.

Runway show

• As the runway show "was originally scheduled to be presented on 9 March 2010 at La Conciergerie in Paris, but the full-scale show was cancelled after McQueen's death", what about naming the section "Presentations"?

• What was shown was still a runway show, it's just that the full-scale public one was cancelled

• "on 9 March 2010 at La Conciergerie" -> "on 9 March 2010, at La Conciergerie"

• Not with DMY, see MOS:DATE
  • I don't think so, the comma should follow in this case Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
    • No, you are incorrect. I'll quote MOS:DATE: "2 September 2001 ... A comma doesn't follow the year unless otherwise required by context". I don't think context requires it here.

• Unnecessary hyphens: "head-wrap", "head-covering"

• I don't think they're unnecessary
  • Nope, hypen is unnecessary here since "headwrap" or "head wrap" is more frequently used Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
    • I've gone with "head wrap" and "head covering"

• "McQueen had listened to in his studio while working" -- remove "had" for the consistency (McQueen listened while working, so no need to use the great past tense imo)

• No, because this is the past of the past - in the past, the people picking the soundtrack picked the music that McQueen was listening to before that

• "Before the show," and "The shows closed with the whispered words" -- Is "show" right wording? As I know the "show" was cancelled so the "presentations" "were held in the Louis XV salon at the Hôtel de Clermont-Tonnerre".

• They were still shows though

• "They may also have been a reference to similar head-coverings worn in McQueen's Voss (Spring/Summer 2001)." -- clarification needed

• What part of this is not clear?

Contemporary

• "It was generally felt that the runway shows" -- "showed"

• This is not correct

• "Horyn was moved" -- You should described who is Horyn, and later use only her lasy name on "Similarly, Cathy Horyn of The New York Times emphasised the hand-crafting in Angels and Demons as compared to the digital focus of Plato's Atlantis."

• Swapped, this was an error from rearranging the sections

• McQueen archivist John Matheson has described Angels and Demons as a "bookend" -- remove "has"

Analysis

• "He describes McQueen as metaphorically" -- "described"
• "embroidery taken from The Garden of Earthly Delights"

• Both done

Legacy

• "The Victoria and Albert Museum in London owns copies of Look 2, with the Hieronymus Bosch print; Look 5, a gold minidress; and Look 11, a light grey gown.[104][105][106] The National Gallery of Victoria owns the dress and boots from Look 3, the dress from Look 4, and a pair of boots from the retail collection.[107][108][109] The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston owns a copy of Look 11.[110]" -- better rephrasing it by using "holds", "possesses", "houses", etc

• I don't see the benefit in the elegant variation
  • There is, using various verbs is much helpful than using only "own" Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
    • I think in this instance, when we're dryly recounting a bunch of museum holdings, introducing variation for the sake thereof is unnecessary and jarring. It's better to use a short innocuous word several times than draw the reader's attention to the writing by ticking off a bunch of thesaurus entries. (It's like in a novel, when two people are talking and every line has a new dialogue tag - Jane growled, Alice hissed, Jane sneered, Alice drawled... it gets distracting.)

• "in the show's first room" -- what about ".. the exhibition's opening gallery"?

• Longer for no particular benefit

• That's all I see :) Camilasdandelions (✉️) 00:00, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review Camilasdandelions, I've done most of the changes but pushed back in some places. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Camilasdandelions, it's been nearly two weeks - any thoughts? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, probably I wasn't notified. I'll leave few comments there soon. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 05:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Hi @Camilasdandelions, have responded above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, Support Camilasdandelions (✉️) 06:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

MCE89

Just a handful of suggestions from me:

• ...making gestures like giving away possessions and telling people he loved them that, in retrospect, have been taken as him setting his affairs in order - I found this slightly tricky to parse on my first reading, can I suggest a slight restructuring of the sentence to: ...making gestures that have been taken in retrospect as him setting his affairs in order, such as giving away possessions and telling people he loved them

• Yes, that's much better

• Is the title unofficial in the sense that it wasn't chosen by McQueen himself, or unofficial in the sense that it wasn't used at all by his fashion house/Burton and was only unofficially given to the collection later on?

• Great question; I wish I knew!

• I wonder if In many ways, the collection encapsulated McQueen's entire career should be attributed (or rephrased), as the tone reads as a little odd to me in wikivoice

• It reads fine to me with the context of the rest of the sentence?

• Suggest adding a few words introducing Hieronymus Bosch and Stefan Lochner (i.e. "the Dutch painter" and "the German Renaissance painter")

• Have added

• ...the collection demonstrated McQueen's romantic side, in the grey chiffon gowns, but also felt his irreverent side was present, in the dramatic embellished cloaks - Up to you, but I'd probably drop the commas before "in the grey chiffon gowns" and "in the dramatic embellished cloaks"

• Mmmmmmmmmmm okay.

• I believe MOS:LQ suggests the full stop should go outside the quotation marks in described it as "a requiem."

• I'm always mucking this up

• Similarly, Juliana Luna Mora and Jess Berry also considered... - I think you could drop either "similarly" or "also"

• Have tossed the also but left the similarly

• Not a source review, but a few referencing nitpicks I noticed on my read through:
  • Is the bundled cite for ref 79 intentional? You have other places with four inline citations, so I'm not sure if there's a reason that these are the only ones bundled in this way

• • No I just got distracted and forgot to come back around for the others

• • You have a dab link for The Telegraph in ref 81

• • Fixed, I think

• • There are p/pp mismatches in refs 22, 27, 47, 49 and 58

• • These shooooooould all be tidy now, I think.

MCE89 (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments MCE89, I've made the majority of suggested changes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@MCE89, it's been nearly two weeks. Any thoughts? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Extremely sorry, this had completely slipped my mind. Nothing else from me, happy to support. MCE89 (talk) 07:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Generalissima: Pass on source review

I'll look over the sources. This seems to be a reliable and expansive set of sources, with the inclusion of many of the major sources you've used across previous McQueen FACs.

• Any reason you wikilink authors but not editors?

• No, an oversight. I think it's only Wilcox, the rest would be redlinks unless I missed someone just now
  • There was one more, but I fixed it.-G

• Like half the books have OCLCs, the other half don't. Be consistent one way or another on that.

• Added

• Fox 2012's ISBN is hyphenated differently than the other ones.

• All ISBNs should be consistent now

• You are missing ISSNs for many of the magazines; be consistent one way or another on including them.

• Looks like I only have one in the whole article, so I've removed it

• You should capitalize Paris in the Givhan 2010 article

• Oops

• I think the two academic journal links in the Bibliography (Mora and Berry 2022, McWade 2021) should use the same date format.

• Good catch, fixed

• Cite number 84 would be a bit easier to parse using template:Sfnm

• Yeah, but then I'd have to bibliographize those news articles, which would be inconsistent with the rest of the article. (I've also done these bundles in other FAs with no issue).

• I don't think this is actually an issue, MoS speaking, but I note that a couple web links are missing archive links.

• Yeah I sort of gave up trying to use IAbot since it seems to be down most of the time, eventually someone wanders over and runs it for me when it's working

@Premeditated Chaos: Apologies for the nitpicking; ping me when everything's ready. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 09:09, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Generalissima, no apologies required, thanks for your time, fixes are made :)

• Fair enough on everything. I made one lil fix (an extra wikilink for an editor), and everything looks good to me now. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:12, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Some images are missing alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria, I've added alt text for all images now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Aoba47

For clarification, I am looking at the following version of the article when conducting my review. I hope that my comments are helpful:

• Apologies in advance as this is admittedly quite nitpick-y, but I have a question about the following sentence: It incorporated traditional tailoring and dressmaking techniques that McQueen had learned early in his career while also featuring the sophisticated digitally engineered prints that McQueen experimented with in the past few seasons. I wonder if the second McQueen is necessary and if it could be replaced with "he" to avoid repetition? This is a relatively minor note, so feel free to push back. This just caught my eye, so I thought that it was worth asking about here.

• New rule: no apologies required in a FAC review :) Have tweaked

• I would apologize for that, but I think that would defeat the point lol. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Do we know who did the "There is no more" voice over? When I look at the article, it reads like this information is unknown or was not publicly disclosed, but I wanted to double-check.

• Sadly no, no one seems to really have reported on it one way or another.

• I had a feeling that would be the case. It could be the case where this information was intentionally kept private. Thank you for letting me know. Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• I have a question about the following sentence: Some time after 3 am on 11 February, he committed suicide; his body was discovered later that morning. Would it be relevant to mention who discovered the body? I believe that it was his housekeeper. I was just curious as when I read this part, it did leaving me wondering who discovered his body, but I can also see this pulling too much focus away from the article's actual topic (the collection). Again, feel free to push back on this one. I just wanted to raise this question here since I thought about it while reading this part.

• I think this is unnecessary detail for the collection article

• That makes sense. It is not relevant to the collection, and it is more important to keep the part on McQueen's suicide to the important and relevant facts. Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• This is more of a clarification question, but was there any discussion about not completing and presenting this collection given McQueen's suicide? Did McQueen leave a note or make arrangements or anything about how he wanted this collection to be handled after his death? Again, this was just something that I was curious about, as this was a sensitive and serious issue. Apologies for all of the clarification questions as part of this review. I was just curious while reading the article and wanted to check with you about this.

• He did leave a note, the full contents of which have never been publicly disclosed. What was released to the public doesn't concern the collection and I didn't see any information anywhere about posthumous directions. For what it's worth, and this is OR on my part, Burton was devoted to him. If she thought for a second he'd have wanted her to burn the collection I have no doubt she would have, so I have to imagine she either knew or thought he'd have wanted her to go ahead.

• That does make sense to me. Thank you for the clarification and explanation. I was just curious as I know that there is a lot of disource around what to do with someone's work after their death. And I would trust that Burton would have known best in this situation. Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• For this part, McQueen intended to shift his focus to hand-crafting, I believe that it should be handcrafting without the hyphen. I am not seeing the hyphen used in British spellings of the word. Also, would a link for handcrafting be helpful here?

• Swapped to "handicrafts" and linked

• I think that is a better word choice here. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• I have two comments about the following sentence: Katherine Knox considered the use of these images on the garment to be an "unsettling rumination on the afterlife" on McQueen's part. I believe that it should be Kristin Knox rather than Katherine Knox. I would also recommend adding some sort of descriptor for her so that unfamiliar readers can have additional context without having to navigate to the source and to click off the page.

• Oop, I'm always doing this to poor Knox; added "author"

• I have done that before too lol. Thank you for addressing this point. Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Did any of the models discuss their experience doing the runway show? I was just curious about this while reading the critical opinions and perspectives of the presentation, and I know that models have discussed their experiences with McQueen's shows before.

• Not that I found, interestingly. I'd have thought Polina for sure.

• I would have thought Polina would have made some sort of statement as well, but I do also understand why they would want to keep things more private given the circumstances. Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• I believe this was discussed above, but just as a friendly reminder, I would make sure to archive the online citations in the future. This is not a requirement for a FA, but I have had my own issues with link rot and death, and that is never a fun surprise or experience.

• The bot seems to be working today so I've run it, which should fix the below-noted issues with refs 17, 82, and 87

• I am glad to hear that. The bot really does make things so much easier. Thank you for addressing this point. Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• I believe that Citation 2 should have an English translation for the title. I think that this is the only non-English source used in the article, unless I had overlooked anything.

* Added

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Citation 17 is dead at least for me. The link leads to a HTTP 404 error message. I also get an error message for Citations 82 and 87.

Wonderful work as always! A majority of my comments are either nitpicks or clarification questions. I did not notice anything major or pressing. After everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to just make sure that I have not missed anything. I do not think that I will catch anything else, but I want to make sure that I do my due diligence as a reviewer. I hope that you are having a wonderful start to your week, and best of luck with your FAC! Hopefully, my review can help to revive some attention here. Aoba47 (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

As always Aoba I'm tremendously grateful for your time and energy, happy to hear any other thoughts. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. I will read through the article again later today. Again, I do not imagine that I will find anything, but I just want to be absolutely certain. Despite the context, I really watching a YouTube video of the runway show. The last look in particular is exquisite. Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• I believe that Lady Gaga wore a gown from this collection for the 2010 MTV Video Music Awards (but please correct me if I am wrong). I did find a Harper's Bazaar article, which credits the dress as from the "Angels and Demons" collection. Gaga also discusses this dress in this interview for Vogue (at the 6:00 mark) and says that it is from McQueen's last collection. I am not sure if the interview is particularly useful for this article, but I wanted to share that with you just in case.

Interestingly, I think Harper's has it wrong there. The dress wasn't one of the 16 runway pieces (I went to grab the look number), it looks like a custom piece made in the style of the collection. I've added it with some notes though because it is interesting! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this and for addressing this for me. That does make sense. When I did further research on this, most of the coverage references this dress in vaguer terms, describing it just as a custom McQueen rather than pinning it down to a specific collection, so Harper's is most likely incorrect in this situation. I watched the runway show on YouTube and this dress is not a part of the presentation (and this dress is quite noticeable so it would be hard to miss). I would recommend archiving the online sources for this part, but it is not a priority. Aoba47 (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

This is my last comment. Thank you for your patience. Everything else in the article looks good to me. Let me know when this has been addressed, and I will be more than happy to support the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you again for your patience with my review. I had a really good time reading through this article and learning about the collection, even with the heavy subject matter. Weirdly enough, my favorite piece may be the Mary evening gown from the retail collection, but I like how the rendering goes with the gown's silhouette. But anyway, I support this article for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Wehwalt

• Support per my detailed comments at peer review and my re-read of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• I participated in the Peer Review several months ago, and I think by the end of the PR the article was in fine shape, and near FA status.

• I ran the copyvio tool and it reported one warning. But the warning is related to a garbage website that apparently copied text from the WP article in September 2025 (not the other way around).

• Not sure boldface is needed here: Initially, the media reported her first name as "Kate", a diminutive of "Catherine".

• Citations and sources look good: both in quality/reliability; and format/layout. "Show Ref Check" tool does not reveal any issues.

• The article might benefit from an image gallery at the bottom ... but I'm not sure if Commons has many decent free-to-use images. To avoid any issues related to WP:OR or WP:SYNTH any pics in a gallery should show outfits/items that sources specifically commented upon. A gallery is not required for FA status ... this comment is simply my personal preference.

• Prose reads well: several reviewers, including I, went over the prose during the PR.

• I looked at the licensing info of all the images, and it appears valid. But I have not done a formal image review.

• Support. Noleander (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Noleander I've dropped the boldface around "Kate". Thank you for your suggestions. MSincccc (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

750h

• Support as the good article reviewer. 750h+ 02:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Support from Jon698

• I reviewed the DYK for this article some time back and was surprised to see it nominated as a FAC. Will make comments in due time. Jon698 (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
• 1. Reference 9 has a paragraph that could be useful for discussing the Kate Effect. It would also provide another mention for Issa, the first fashion company mentioned in the article.
• 1A. "Though Issa had already been struggling financially, the surge in sales and heightened demand that continued for weeks after the announcement had Helayel looking for an investor to help her keep up. Her friend Camilla Al-Fayed came on in 2011, buying a 51 percent stake in the company. “In the beginning it was good—Camilla was very organized,” she said. “However, in 2012 a new C.E.O. was hired and things started moving in a different direction, which didn’t work for me.”"
• 2. "She reportedly caught William's attention during a charity fashion show at the University of St. Andrews, while wearing a sheer, lingerie-style, strapless dress on the catwalk" -> Could Lingerie be linked
• 3. "The same dress sold for £78,000" -> Could you add Template:Inflation
• 4. "Catherine has been credited with popularising nude pumps" -> Change "pumps" (American English) to "court shoes" (British English)
• 5. Completely optional, but I would change "has worn" to just "wore" since you use wore more often and is better for future proofing

• • Jon698 Thanks for your suggestions. I’ve implemented them, except for the inflation template (as it introduces a dollar conversion), the "has worn" change in a couple of cases, and the Issa point. I look forward to any further thoughts. Best, MSincccc (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  • You can use other currency numbers with the inflation template like this £78,000 (equivalent to £115,340 in 2025) Jon698 (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

    Done, thanks. MSincccc (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Whonting

I recall flagging a few issues with TSI in the peer review and paused before running through the entire article, so I'll be paying attention to that here. Several of these were flagged by User:Alaexis/AI Source Verification. Feel free to push back where appropriate:

• Where in the source is the lead image dress identified as partly "silk crepe"? - not yet addressed
  • The source currently used states that the gown is described as "silk crepe champagne-coloured dress". MSincccc (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• I don't believe The Telegraph source supports them meeting in 2001. It says they met in their first year, and graduated in 2005. Their first year would have run from from Sep 2001 to May 2002. - not yet addressed
  • The BBC source, which states that the couple met in September 2001 during their first year at St Andrews. MSincccc (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• The proposal trip lasting 10 days does not appear to be supported.
  • Dropped 10 days.
• The sources appear to support the proposal announcement taking place at St James's Palace rather than Clarence House
  • The Guardian source states that the engagement “was announced by Clarence House earlier in the day”. A press conference and photocall subsequently took place at St James’s Palace. MSincccc (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• The Vanity Fair article states their relationship went public in Spring 2004, not 2002.
  • I've changed to 2004.
• What in the source is supporting "Catherine's fashion received substantial media attention following the public revelation of her relationship"? - not yet addressed
  • I had rephrased this sentence to Her fashion choices continue to attract global media attention. MSincccc (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• The People source says the sheer dress sold for $125,000, while the Telgraph source says the dress sold for £78,000. Can we establish the dress was sold for dollars? Otherwise this may just be a conversion by an American magazine for its audience, which should not be replicated in a BrEng article.
  • The conversion should clarify $US
• Many of these I think are fair and are getting picked up by the AI Source Verification tool. I don't think it's a good use of my time to reproduce the list of items it flags, so I hope you can use the tool and go through on your own. Ping me when you're done and I'll jump back in.
• Suggest linking the Internet Archive copies of Moody 2013 and Smith 2011.
• I have had a look over unused sources as well:
  • Chapter 9, "William and Kate" of Royal Fever: The British Monarchy in Consumer Culture from the University of California Press will need to be brought in here.
  • Have you look at the chapter Sustainable Kate? Wear-Again Anne?: The Recycled Fashions of the Duchess of Cambridge and the Princess Royal in Engaging with Fashion; or
  • The regal catwalk: royal weddings and the media promotion of British fashion in The British Monarchy On Screen?
  • HRH: So Many Thoughts on Royal Style by Elizabeth Holmes looks interesting, and is published by an imprint of a reputable trade publisher and the writer credible.
  • The Routledge History of Monarchy chapter "Clothing Royal Bodies" gives some interesting context that I think worth including.
  • The perspective in the first edition of Routledge's 1st edition of Fashion Journalism and The Routledge Companion to Consumer Behavior are imo worth looking over.
  • Routledge's Celebrity Fashion Marketing; Developing a Human Fashion Brand isn't really worth a look, but it does cite Hedonic customer responses to fast fashion and replicas which is.
  • The Crown in Vogue may be worth picking through
  • I would be interested in hearing from another reviewer (Noleander? If you're game?) to opine on the reliability of Re-Fashioning Kate: the Making of a Celebrity Princess Brand, published in a volume of the proceedings of Association for Consumer Research.
  • I can't access The Times British Royal Fashion, which may have some information.
  • This Korean source --Kate Middleton's Royal Fashion Style Analysis looks interesting and the journal appears reputable.
  • Kate Middleton: Du rêve au règne is in French, and some keyword searches such as McQueen and Kate effect appears to show potential as a source.

Whonting (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Whonting Thanks for taking the time to review this. I'll try to reply to them by tomorrow evening. MSincccc (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks MSincccc. While you're working on this, I've noticed a few more things in the lead I'll raise now so you can knock it all out at once. Whonting (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I can confirm that Holmes 2020 is an excellent source of information on Catherine's fashion that was not incorporated into the article during my review yesterday. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 13:53, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• The lead reproduces the 2002 going public error.
• "since her relationship with Prince William became public" I don't get the sense that this happened until later from the article.
• "Her style is often described as elegant" I flagged this in the PR and still see it here. My comment there: I see in the lead that Her style is often described as elegant, yet don't see descriptions of elegance in the body. What is being used to support this?
• Is her outfits being "accessible" a reference to her reusing them? If so, I don't think that works as a summary.
• My searches indicated that "Kate Effect" was much more common than "Kate Middleton Effect". On the Internet Archive for instance, "Kate Effect" produced 8 times as many results as "Kate Middleton Effect".
• Is public admiration a reference to her influence on purchase habits? If so, state that plainly.
• Likewise, is "has had a substantial impact on the clothing industry in the United Kingdom and beyond" a reference to the Kate Effect? Or are there other influences I am missing?

Whonting (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Whonting Thanks for the review. I’ve addressed the points above; please let me know if anything remains. Best, MSincccc (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @MSincccc, any movement on the above unused sources? Can I also confirm you have run through the article through the AI source verification tool? Whonting (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Whonting Thanks for the suggestions. I’ve incorporated a few of the sources where relevant and have also run the article through the AI source verification tool.

I look forward to your feedback. Best, MSincccc (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, looking back over.

• What are you drawing from to say she stopped working for Jigsaw in 2007?
• "Sporty" is specifically referring to her skiwear, not a general comment on her fashionsense.
  • Rephrased to specify that this refers to her skiwear.
• "she often wore simple overcoats and tweed clothing" - Is this supported by "one totally tweed look"?
  • No. Rephrased this sentence.
• If we are talking about her fashion in the late 2000s, be explicited with WP:DATED when you say "Oliver Marre of The Guardian referred to Middleton as a "fashion icon"". Better work at establishing the timeline is needed throughout, with the change in tenses sometimes strange. Take the following sentences that appear in succession:
  • "Catherine has been credited with popularising nude court shoes in the early years of her marriage." - specific past time
  • "During daytime engagements, she has been seen to favour coatdresses and tailored outerwear." - general assessment, including today
  • "She has also been photographed wearing waxed jackets, lavallière blouses, blazers and skinny jeans." - ambiguously current, more recounting a history
  • "Catherine wore dresses by Jenny Packham numerous times, most notably outside the Lindo Wing after giving birth to her children in 2013, 2015 and 2018" - back to past tense. Later we jump down to a 2016 photoshoot, firmly in the past.
• "During appearances at public events... However, during evening events" the source precedes the following information with "Even before she became the one of the world’s most photographed women" and is in a section titled "The college years".
• "Kate Middleton's Secret Pantyhose Hack Is a Modern Marvel" is vestigial as an inline cite
• Source does not appear to support pumps being popularized in the early years of marriage
  • The 2018 People source has been removed. MSincccc (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• What in the source is supporting "who designed many of Diana, Princess of Wales's favourite evening gowns and day suits"?
  • Rephrased to: Catherine Walker, a designer favoured by Diana, Princess of Wales which is supported by the source.
• What is the relevance of Diana to the selection of tiaras? In general the sourcing here is strange: we say "as of 2025" even though the source on Diana is from 2020.
  • The concerned reference has been moved to the “parallels” sentence: “Writers have often compared Catherine's fashion with the fashion of Diana, Princess of Wales.” This now supports only the stylistic comparison rather than selection of tiaras. The tiara list itself is supported by refs 35 and 36. "As of 2025" reflects the latest available sourcing. MSincccc (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Some instances of WP:QUOTEPOV ("caring wardrobe", "skewed bold")
  • I've paraphrased this and presented the points in neutral prose.
• "suitable for visiting hospitals and schools" some explanation of what makes a skirt suit particularly appropriate for visiting hospitals or schools would be welcome here. I also think "bright hues" and "colourful fabrics" are saying the same thing.
  • Rephrased to: She has developed a wardrobe suited to engagements such as hospital and school visits, often featuring tailored pieces in bright colours, creating a smart yet approachable appearance.
• I would think you could find a place to link Engagement dress of Catherine Middleton. "Since her wedding" is an easter egg for Wedding dress of Catherine Middleton.
• "The spread was dubbed as the "most personal and natural royal portraits ever undertaken by Vogue"" by Vogue, hardly seems DUE.
• Overarching views: Sorry Msincccc, I'm not quite convinced this is at the FA level and am at an oppose. My impression of the article is that it doesn't feel cohesive, with the background section feeling rushed, the Fashion and style section going between a chronological account to a general description, the best dressed section reading as proseline and insufficiently summarizing sources rather than listing them, and some concerns re TSI (although as I read further in, I am finding less). I find it strange that there is no discussion of her wedding dress even as we have an entire article dedicated to it. I'm sorry to land here, I came back to this happy to go through, pointing out all the issues with TSI I could find and then when you had fixed them land on a support. Whonting (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Whonting Thanks for the detailed review — I appreciate it. I’ll work through the issues you’ve raised and follow up once revisions are in place. Best, MSincccc (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Whonting I have addressed all the points raised above. The remaining items are expanding the coverage of the wedding dress and further developing the background section. I would particularly appreciate your thoughts on these two areas before proceeding. Thank you again for the detailed review. Best, MSincccc (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  The answer to both of these questions will depend on what you want the section "Fashion and style" to be. At times it feels like it wants to be a chronological account, at others a thematic overview, often bouncing between the two. One manifestation is that at the end, two trailing news pieces are left that obviously didn't fit anywhere else. This is a very broad subtitle (the article is "Fashion of Catherine..." and this subsection is "Fashion and...") and to my eyes at least, it will require broad planning and reorganisation of some kind to flow and appear as a coherent whole.

  And -- not to be too blunt, but you haven't addressed all the points above. The silk crepe question is still remaining after several rounds of reviews and explicit flagging, we don't have any indication of the relevance of Diana to the selection of tiaras (if you think it makes sense and doesn't need changing, please tell me that so I don't think you're missing it or ignoring it), same goes with pumps being popularized in the early years of marriage, proseline issues in the Influence and recognition section, others as well ... I don't want you to stress over this, just have a go at identifying changes and answers to questions line-by-line until you get a few FAs under your belt. Whonting (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Whonting I've responded above. I look forward to your feedback. Best, MSincccc (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks MSincccc, if you don't mind I'll look at it all at once when the more substantive structural issues have been addressed. Whonting (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Whonting I’ve expanded the background and added a brief discussion of the wedding dress under “Fashion and style”. I’d appreciate your thoughts when you have time.

  Best, MSincccc (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Whonting I’ve expanded the article and added further sources in line with your suggestions. When you have time, I’d very much appreciate any further thoughts.

  Thanks again for your review. Best, MSincccc (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• I don't know. I do feel that we are in a fix loop, and I don't really see this article moving in the direction I would want it to in order to support its promotion to FA. I still see the fashion and style section being overly broad, and as moving between chronology and themes between paragraphs and within them. I don't see that addressed, with its most obvious manifestations, the trailing news items, still there. Let's look at the second and third paragraphs of Fashion and style:
  • "Catherine has been credited with popularising nude court shoes in the early years of her marriage." Okay - I would much prefer you establish that nude court shoes were a common feature of her outfits before going into their influence, but we can chalk that up to taste. Chronologically, we are in early marriage.
  • "During daytime engagements, she has favoured coatdresses and tailored outerwear." We are now speaking generally about her fashion, including today. The sources cited inline, as best I can tell, only speak generally about daytime and tailoring in the following sentence: "She is also a major fan of tailoring in general, wearing everything from double-breasted coats to structured tuxedo styles for evening." This doesn't support her favoring coatdresses in the daytime in particular, and at least for tailoring, positions the preference as general rather than something worn especially in the daytime.
  • "She has also worn waxed jackets, lavallière blouses, blazers and skinny jeans." General list of past outfits, ambiguously present
  • "She has also been photographed wearing simple overcoats and a tweed look." - Same chronology again, and the sentence again begins with "She has also". Even though it's two words, "tweed look" is taken directly from the source and should be reworded. In the source, these outfits are also situated before her marriage, and before all the other outfits in the previous sentence (e.g. "lavallière blouses" were said to debut in 2019). This view from out of time means we don't get a sense of development, which sources do talk about. For instance, Vanderhoof 2020 discusses how her casual outfits are a "far cry from the preppier, more glam looks that she favored when she first joined the royal family." This is not conveyed in the article.
  • "However, during evening events, Catherine has often been noted to adopt bolder styles: for instance, CNN noted her wearing a baroque-printed silk dress, contrasting with her friends' more simplistic styles." this is a general comment on her outfits, including today, despite the fact that, as raised above, the source is commenting on her fashion sense in 2004 and earlier, commenting explicitly on "The college years"
  • "While Catherine wears items from many designers, she has also worn dresses by Catherine Walker, a designer favoured by Diana, Princess of Wales." general comment. "She has also" reappears, and doesn't really make sense (why would her wearing items from many designers mean she wouldn't wear dresses by Walker?)
  • "Catherine wore dresses by Jenny Packham numerous times, most notably outside the Lindo Wing after giving birth to her children in 2013, 2015 and 2018, and at the No Time to Die premiere in London when she appeared in a dress inspired by Shirley Eaton's character in Goldfinger." chronologically in the past. The use of "notably" appears to be an example of MOS:EDITORIAL, given the sources do not highlight these as particularly significant, but rather says "first ever black tie appearance as a royal, making headlines in a blush pink sequin and jewel-encrusted gown by the designer for a charity gala dinner in London in 2011. More recently she wore an emerald green evening gown by the label for her tour of Pakistan in 2019."
  • "Alexander McQueen has been a frequent choice for Catherine since her wedding." - I would prefer if you disambiguated brand from person here, since I recall seeing in a source that her wedding dress was popularly credited to the deceased man.
    • Clarified.
  • "Her wedding dress received positive reactions from fashion commentators and was described as classic and timeless." We are back in the past. We have commentary split between background and Fashion and style. Importantly -- I don't know what the dress looked like from reading this. I hear it is a "white wedding gown" "combining traditional and modern elements and reflecting an emphasis on craftsmanship and traditional workmanship" - which I read as quite vacuous. What is the intended distinction you are drawing between craftsmanship and traditional workmanship? What are the traditional elements? Modern ones? etc.
  • "It was also compared to earlier royal bridal styles, including those of Grace Kelly and the wedding dress of Elizabeth II." in what sense?
    • Clarified.
  • "She has worn its designs to several annual events including Trooping the Colour, Royal Ascot and the British Academy Film Awards, as well as state banquets and receptions." back to general past, including present.
• In Fashion and style, going by paragraph:
  • Chronological
  • Generally thematic, some general and some historical
  • Some chronological (further back than we have been discussing) and thematic
  • Thematic
  • Chronological
  • Thematic
  • Chronological
  • Chronological
• As I read this, I don't see a coherent organizing principle.
• I also want to raise the sources that have been brought in. I will defer to AndrewPeterT that Holmes 2020 and Jobson 2024 have been adequately integrated, but I don't believe some I raised have. Looking at Royal Fever, the only thing brought in was "Scholars have linked the "Kate effect" to consumer behaviour, noting that her choices can shape purchasing decisions in the marketplace." - which I don't think makes sense, given Kate effect is the effect on consumer behaviour, the effect on consumer behaviour can't be linked to consumer behaviour. Page 254 has an example of a tradition Catherine integrated at her wedding; tucking a sprig of myrtle into the bridal bouquet, followed since Victoria, subject to popular myth. On page 261 it points to a potential reference in Cooler, faster, more expensive: the return of the Sloane Ranger, and remarks on the relationship between Catherine and the brand and how she was unusual. Hedonic customer responses to fast fashion and replicas was not brought in, and covers the same subject as page 262-263, on remakes and replicas being brought to market. I stop reading here, but it continues.
• Other general comments:
  • The assessments around the end of 2010s are quite generous, other sources I read are much more critical.
  • The "Catherine has become a globally influential figure in fashion..." paragraph is quite repetitive and can be consolidated.
    • I've trimmed repetitive wording.
  • The best dressed list section remains listicle in structure (In year, publication named her... for each sentence). Some items appear plainly undue, for instance: who are Wizard Jeans? Who were they polling? Why do we include her listing by British Vogue? The listing is explicitly not because of her fashion. etc.
    • I've removed some weaker entries and reduced the list-like structure, retaining those which are relevant to her fashion influence.
  • I flagged above that the conversion should clarify $US, which should be attended to.
    • Clarified $US.
  • I am still unsure of what the background is intended to be; it appears to include material that I would expect in Fashion and style.
    • The "Background" section is intended to provide readers with context about Catherine before moving into her fashion and style. I've reworked it to keep it focused on her personal background.

Whonting (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed comments.

I've reworked the "Fashion and style" section to give it a clearer progression, moving from her early public profile through the wedding and early royal years to later developments. I've also expanded the wedding dress coverage and rephrased parts that felt repetitive or list-like.

Please let me know if anything still needs attention. Best, MSincccc (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Support from Gerda

I took part in the peer review and read the article once more now. I'd like a bit more lead, perhaps reflecting her choices, but am ready to support as it is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Gerda Arendt. MSincccc (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Princess_of_Wales_at_State_Banquet_2025-09-17_(0.75_crop).jpg: OK (although I'd prefer if the licensing template used was PD-USGov-POTUS)
  • Done.
• File:Duchess of Cambridge in June 2013.JPG: OK
• File:Cambridge family at Trooping the Colour 2019 - 12.jpg: OK
• File:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (1).jpg: OK

―Howard • 🌽³³ 01:20, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33 Thanks for the image review. MSincccc (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Joko2468: source-text integrity

This table lists 20 random passages from throughout the article (24.4% of 82 total passages). These passages contain 26 inline citations (25.2% of 103 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. Joko2468 (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Joko2468 Thanks for the source-text integrity check. I’ll go through these points later today. Best, MSincccc (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me on those two points, however the material on tiaras needs "as of December 2025" or "as of 2025". The sentence as it stands is likely to become outdated. Joko2468 (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Went with "as of 2025", thanks. MSincccc (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Great, happy to support promotion on the basis of sourcing. Sources are reliable for the statements made and the subject has been well-researched. All web sources are archived but for ref 1 (an easy fix). Joko2468 (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I've archived reference 1. Thanks for the source review. MSincccc (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• 15b and 17a: originally doesn't appear to be supported.
  • The source states the dress was "originally intended as a skirt". Fine to tweak phrasing if needed. MSincccc (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Joko2468 I think I've got to everything. Thanks again. MSincccc (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• 26: I'm not familiar with this topic area so please correct me, but is this not original research? It's a good deal beyond my competencies but, further to this, she doesn't appear to be wearing a tea dress, lavallière blouse, waxed jacket, or blazer in the four photographs.
  • Fixed it.
• 32 and 33: MOS:NOW-- I would also state that she has usually favoured the Lovers' Knot tiara, the article repeats this point throughout.
  • Done.
• 35: dead archived link, you can replace it with the one that precedes it.
  • Replaced.
• 59b: I'm not familiar with this terminology, could you explain how design motifs is supported?
  • Reworded.
• 66b: this gives the impression that the quote comes from the 2018 study rather than Vanity Fair.
  • Rephrased.
• 81 and 82: the 2011 awards were for "World's Most Stylish Woman" and "Britain's Best-Dressed Personality", and don't appear to necessarily be from the same magazine. Could you provide evidence to confirm that Beauty Magazine awards these titles?
  • The source states:

According to Beauty Magazine, the Duchess of Cambridge was the most beautiful woman of 2012. Kate Middleton… has just been named “Most Beautiful Woman of the Year” for the second consecutive year.

• 94: I'm struggling to follow the paraphrasing here, could you provide quotes to support quiet authority and reinforced royal continuity?
  • Rephrased.

Opposition Support from AndrewPeterT

• Oppose - As an American, to be absolutely clear, this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that today is the United States Semiquincentennial (And to dispel the possibly stereotypical notion that I resent the House of Windsor, I just submitted a draft on Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Catherine's great-grandmother-in-law, today). Instead, my rationale revolves around #1b and #1c of WP:FACR.

1. I am truly surprised that this article on Catherine's fashion has made it this far without a single mention of the analysis Elizabeth Holmes (writer). She has written a The New York Times best-selling book on Catherine's fashion, HRH: So Many Thoughts on Royal Style (2020), which has personally helped me better appreciate the sartorial influence of the Princess of Wales. Moreover, Holmes provides frequent commentary about Catherine on Instagram and Substack. I believe this article could benefit from some commentary on Holmes's reflection of Catherine's fashion in her book. For example:

On the engagement dress of Catherine Middleton: Her color-coordinating off-the-rack dress foreshadowed what would become her signature duchess style, and her shiny nude pantyhose signaled a willingness to follow old-fashioned sartorial norms (Holmes 2020, p. 181)

On the 2011 royal tour of Canada: The nine-day tour was a series of lovely, if often super safe, dresses, paired with her nude L.K. Bennett Sledge pumps. It was her first chance to show a bit of sartorial diplomacy... (Holmes 2020, p. 190)

2. I note that Robert Jobson's 2024 biography of Catherine is also not cited in this article as of this post. He also provides some commentary on her fashion that I believe is quite substantive and shows how she uses fashion to support her causes. For example:

On a royal engagement with BAFTA in January 2023: The hot chilli-red Alexander McQueen [GBP]1,980 tailored power suit radiated authority. Matched with accessories including a beautiful [GBP]640 red suede bag by Miu Miu and Florence earrings in gold by the brand Chalk, it was clear Catherine meant business as she stepped out to a pre-campaign launch event... (Jobson 2024, p. 227)

3. Grazia in particular has noted that Catherine has been using Generation Z for influence on her wardrobe. Being a member of Generation Z myself, I can anecdotally say that Catherine has an ability to connect herself and the British royal family with people like me. I think this article does a disservice not mentioning this.

4. I recognize that this is usually not an objection that would be relevant to a fashion article. However, as Catherine is also a political figure, I believe that there should be some commentary on how the costs of her wardrobe have symbolized the excesses of the British royal family. Even back in 2012, Forbes highlighted the cost of Catherine's accessories. Given that Catherine and William have been heckled by anti-monarchist protesters in recent months, I feel especially compelled to mention this.

5. Finally, I know that this has been a can of worms on Wikipedia and in the real life. I will also not oppose the nomination alone over this. However, I believe that the first sentence of this fashion article specifically should be rewritten as "The fashion of Catherine, Princess of Wales, also known as Kate Middleton, has influenced clothing sales..."

As much as I personally, as well as William and Catherine themselves, despise hearing Kate Middleton, I reluctantly note that multiple fashion sources cited here refer to her as such. More anecdotally, I reluctantly concede that among my American friends, talking about the fashion of Catherine, Princess of Wales leads to confusion. However, talking about the fashion of Kate Middleton will elicit quite a few opinions.

I look forward to potentially supporting this nomination in the future. However, as it stands, I do not believe that this article is as comprehensive as it can be, especially for a person as iconic in the fashion world as Catherine.

Please note that I am busy off-wiki, so I may not directly respond to comments, even with a ping. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 4 July 2026 (UTC); edited 15:38, 5 July 2026 (UTC), 15:40, 5 July 2026 (UTC), and 21:07, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

As an addendum, I agree that the other sources Whonting mentioned should somehow be incorporated into the article. This further supports my belief that #1c of WP:FACR has not been met. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 13:59, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions @AndrewPeterT. I’ve incorporated selected relevant points from the sources mentioned above to broaden coverage.

If there are any specific areas that remain underdeveloped, or particular material from Holmes (2020) you think should be included, I’d be happy to take a look. Best, MSincccc (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc: Thank you for incorporating my #1 feedback. Although I would also prefer that #2 to #5 be addressed, I acknowledge that they may be beyond what is required for WP:FA status.

One last suggestion before I support: Is there any way to mention apolitical criticism of Catherine's fashion, in the spirit of WP:NPOV? Although she has received mainly praise for her sartorial preferences, I do believe that Wikipedia readers should also be aware that this praise is not universal. Namely, Jobson 2024 notes on p. 110 that Janet Street-Porter has called Catherine the "Duchess of Drab", in addition to criticism of Catherine from Shobhaa De following the former's 2016 royal tour of India and Bhutan with William. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 5 July 2026 (UTC); edited 21:08, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@AndrewPeterT I've added a brief note on critical commentary regarding her fashion. Thanks again for your suggestions. Best, MSincccc (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc: Thank you. At this time, I have no further objections. Therefore, I now support this nomination. Congratulations on the hard work. (And if William or Catherine do stumble upon this page someday, I think they would both be impressed!) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 21:07, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Camilasdandelions

Hi, I've just found few issues here.

• "The dress received positive reactions" -- I'm confused what "the dress" means. Can you be more clarifying on this?
  • Clarified that "dress" refers to the wedding dress.
• cover of Vogue in 2011[67], -- The ref should be placed next to comma
  • Ref moved next to comma.
• Refs 34, 35 should be archived
  • Archived.
• Ref 82 dead link
  • The archived URL works.
    • I mean the |url-status=live should be changed to "dead" or removed Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:30, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
• That's all, the article looks almost perfect to me. Nice work! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 09:41, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Camilasdandelions Thanks for your suggestions. Responses above. Best, MSincccc (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Changed, thanks. MSincccc (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:12, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Metalicat

Coming to this as a non-specialist and a first-time reviewer of a fashion article, so this is a lay reader's pass on prose and referencing mechanics only. I'll leave the questions of overall structure and source comprehensiveness to those already engaging with them in depth above.

• On and by Jenny Packham, whose designs she wore for her first black tie appearance in 2011: the two People citations here cover her 2021 No Time to Die premiere gown and her 2018 post-birth appearance, so the 2011 detail does not seem to come from either. The source Whonting quoted above frames the 2011 gala as her first black-tie appearance "as a royal", which is a slightly narrower claim than the current wording; it may be worth matching the text to that phrasing and citing that source here.
  • Clarified the wording to “as a royal” and adjusted the sourcing here. MSincccc (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
• In "Influence and recognition": In July Vanity Fair included her on its international best-dressed list. The year is missing here (the citation gives 2008), and as written it falls between the 2018 and 2022 entries, so it reads out of sequence. Adding the year and moving it earlier would fix both.

I have also made a couple of trivial gnoming fixes directly (page-range en dashes, a stray double space); please revert if any are unwelcome. Nice work bringing this as far as you have; it's a demanding article to get to this standard. Metalicat (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Metalicat Thanks for your comments and the fixes. I look forward to your response. Best, MSincccc (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

P.S I've grouped the Vanity Fair items together for readability, so the 2008 entry appears there. Happy to adjust if you'd prefer otherwise. Best, MSincccc (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Both points resolved. Thats all I can see from a lay readers pass, so Support on prose and referencing mechanics. Metalicat (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Metalicat. MSincccc (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Pbritti

I'll probably end up making a few comments over the next 24 hours with the hopes of making a conclusive statement one way or the other shortly thereafter. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• For "£78,000 (equivalent to US$125,000)", consider £{{formatprice|{{Inflation|UK-GDP|78000|2011|r=-3}}}} in {{inflation-year|UK-GDP}}{{inflation-fn|UK-GDP}} (US${{Inflation|US-GDP|125000|2011|r=-3}} in {{inflation-year|US-GDP}}{{inflation-fn|US-GDP}}) to reflect inflation.
  • Fixed the template per your suggestion. MSincccc (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• "Her influence was evident" Consider adding a specific date for this. This sentence is another opportunity to use the inflation calculator.
  • Added the year. I have not included an inflation conversion here, as the amount is relatively minor.
• In the lead, you link to Alexander McQueen (the person). However, there is no direct mention of McQueen in the body, with subsequent linking going to Alexander McQueen (fashion house). Since the only McQueen pieces with design attribution sourced are those by Sarah Burton, I think the lead's link should be to the fashion house. That'll require a very minor rewrite of that sentence.
  • Rephrased it in the lead.
• If you want to retain mention of McQueen (the person), source 76 verifies him as a designer she wore.
• There is an inconsistent use of commas in sentences starting like "In June 2016,". Consider universalizing the comma following the year, such as changing "In 2007 Oliver Marre..." to "In 2007, Oliver Marre..."
  • Standardised the comma usage.
• While the italicization of the article's title follows Britannica's usage, British Vogue seems to be the full name of that publication and is italicized in full in other publications and throughout our article on the magazine. I think an expert on Condé Nast might need to chime in here.
• Entirely optional, but I would consider some sort of visual illustration of the parallels between Diana and Catherine in the relevant section. Even just using the image of the replica of their common sapphire ring might be useful.
• Attempted to verify the quote "to-the-knee pencil skirts and Philip Treacy hats" (Please put the period outside the quotation mark). The link is dead and the archive link didn't properly capture the page. However, viewing the source code, I was able to verify that the quote is indeed in there.
• For source 32, Natalie Hammond is the author and the publication date is 30 November 2020.
  • Added the author and publication date.
• Link Tatler on first mention in the body.
  • Linked.

• Pbritti Thanks for your suggestions. Responses above. MSincccc (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Pbritti I look forward to any further thoughts or suggestions, when you have the time. Thanks again. Best, MSincccc (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

My concerns are satisfied. Glad to lend my Support Thank you for your strong editing on this article! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 11:42, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Comments from Noleander

• It is really hard to appreciate the building without a plan (overhead) diagram. Can you create (or have someone create) a plan view? Doesn't need to be precisely to scale. I believe it is okay to create a new plan view provided the new figure is completely redrawn as a schematic or representative plan for illustrative purposes only. In other words: no need to replicate a copyrighted blueprint ... one can simply draw a new diagram from, say, Google Maps aerial view. See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Pictorial_Representations_Architectural_Works
  • Following up on this: the article (correctly) has descriptions like "the western wing's southern elevation and the northern wing..." - so readers definitely need a plan diagram with compass showing NSEW, so they can relate the body text to the plan
  • Ditto for body text like "... to indicate that the street side was clearly ..." - the plan diagram should indicate which side of the plan is the street side.
  • Ditto for body text like ".. an extension of the bedroom wing's roof ..." - diagram should indicate which wing holds the bedrooms.
    • Noting that Noleander has graciously offered to create a map (below). - EG
• Light fixture(s) near ceiling: in photo File:Jacobs First House - bedroom 01.jpg there are lights on a pipe near ceiling. I cannot find those described in body text .. am I overlooking it? Are those lights original? or added later? If original, the caption of that photo should mention them since they are peculiar.
  • I think these are later modifications. I haven't been able to find them in any of the usual literature about FLW, so they may not have been part of the original design (or, if they were, they weren't worth mentioning). Even the National Historic Landmark report, which usually describes a building's architecture in great detail (well, at least those from the 21st century do), doesn't mention the lighting bracket on the ceiling of that pic. - EG
• Not needed: "The Pohle family hosted events such as a lip-reading class at the house." - Not encyclopedic, not helpful to reader, and source is a primary source (about Pohle), not a source about Wright or the house.
  • Agreed, and removed. - EG
• More precise? "Wright's design eschewed large front windows; instead, the main or western elevation of the facade is a plainly designed sandwich wall."
  • "eschewed" can another word be used? Some readers may not know that word, or may think it means "discouraged" or "downplayed" when in fact it means (here) "deliberately avoided".
  • "... the main or western elevation of the facade is a plainly designed sandwich wall." Not sure what the use of "elevation" and "facade" is trying to convey. (a) What is the facade in this context? Is there a false wood wall fronting a hidden brick wall? If so: is there a gap between them? (b) Would readers get the point better if it was simply "... the main or western elevation is a plainly designed sandwich wall."
    • Essentially, elevation (architecture) is a portion of the facade that faces in a certain direction. So yeah, it is redundant.
• Sandwich walls "The house's triple-layered sandwich walls consist of a central layer of vertical pine boards wedged between two layers of horizontal boards..."
  • Phrase "sandwich walls" is sometimes in quotes in the article (2 or 3 places) and sometimes not. All uses should have quotes or not. I don't think it would be encyclopedic to use quotes (see WP:SCAREQUOTE: "Quotation marks, when not marking an actual quotation,[d] may be interpreted as "scare quotes", indicating that the writer is distancing themself from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression.").
    • Removed the quotes. - EG
  • I'm not sure if "sandwich wall" is a common phrase in English. I don't recall hearing it before. I see WP article Sandwich panel which is close, but not the same.
    • It is not. In fact, it's one of these phrases that Wright made up specifically for his designs. - EG
  • Consider adding a paragraph or sub-section into Sandwich panel article covering 1930's era sandwich walls, then linking to it?
  • Clarify terminology: "facade" vs outer layer of sandwich wall - the article mentions the "facade" a lot. Is that the same as the outer layer of the sandwich wall? In all uses? Doesn't the article say that some places the facade is brick? But brick is never the outer layer of the sandwich wall, is it?
    • Some of the sandwich walls are located inside. The outer layer of the sandwich wall is better described as the "surface", since it's not synonymous with the facade. - EG
• Floor heating system: vague? "... the heating system did not provide sufficient heat during the cold weather, so it had to be replaced with a hot-water system" Earlier the floor heating system is described as a "radiant heating" system. But Radiant heating and cooling is a very broad term that encompasses many technologies: electrial; hot-water; sunshine (absorbed in day; released at night) etc. (a) What, exactly, was the technology of the original floor heating design? (b) When the system was replaced with a "hot-water system" was the new system within the floor, or not?
  • I clarified that the first system used steam and the second system used hot water. They both used the same pipes in the floor. - EG
• ... in progress ... Noleander (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Noleander, just a quick note regarding the map: Unfortunately I have no idea how to draw floor diagrams (otherwise I would include them in hundreds of articles). But it may be worth asking the Graphics Lab about it. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I can draw it if you can give me an external link to a reliable source that shows the floorplan. Noleander (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. I know Storrer, William Allin (1993). The Frank Lloyd Wright Companion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-77624-8. has a floor plan; I just need to see if it's digitized somewhere. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

That book is online in Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/franklloydwright0000stor.

The Jacobs First house is on page 242 at https://archive.org/details/franklloydwright0000stor/page/242

I can take it from here. Noleander (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the initial comments Noleander. I replied to three of them, but will continue later (it's getting late for me). Epicgenius (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Epicgenius - I created an SVG image and uploaded it to commons. I inserted it into the article in the Architecture section, but - of course - you can move it whereever you want. This is a first draft image .. I still have some tweaking to do, but I put it in early so other reviewers could reference it. Let me know if there are any specific changes you want. Noleander (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Noleander, I just had a first look. Thank you very much for doing this. At first glance, it looks good; certainly matches up with other floor plans I've seen. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for those other URLs ... they solve the mystery of how the outside walkway wraps around the lower-left corner between the entryway and carport. I'll incorporate that clarification within the next day or two. Noleander (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Epicgenius - I updated the floorplan image of the house, and it is now fairly accurate. I'm not planning any more updates. If you want any specific changes, let me know (or, you can use Inkscape app to update the SVG file). If you have any future FAC nominations that need a floorplan diagram, I can draw it. Noleander (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@Noleander, thanks, I appreciate it. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Lead: Define? "... it was completed in 1937 and is cited as Wright's first Usonian home." Here, in the 2nd sentence of the article, 99.9% of readers will have no idea what "Usonian" means. So can the article here either (a) parenthetically define Usonian; or (b) replace "Usonion" with "low-cost home" or similar.
  • Usonian is a style, so I've clarified that. People wanting further information could click on the link or read further. - EG
• Lead: Positive or negative? "When the house was finished, observers commented on its materials, proportions, and relationship to the surrounding landscape." Sentence is not too useful without a word like "favorably" or "admired" or "applauded" etc.
  • The commentary was more mixed than that (it was only later that the design was largely praised). I've clarified this.
• Better wording? "... during the cold weather, so hot water began to be used instead." The 2nd half "... so hot water began to be used instead" sounds clunky. Maybe " ... so they converted the system to circulate hot water instead." or similar?
  • Done. - EG
• Clarify "The house lacked screens to protect against summer heat..." A bit confusing. If that is referring to normal mesh window screens? If so, "protect against heat" is not the best wording ... consider " ... to enable ventilation in the summer" or ".. guard against insects when the windows were opened" etc. Or, if it is not referring to normal mesh, then details are needed.
  • Clarified. Yes, it is referring to window screens, but the house overheating during the summer was the specific complaint. - EG
• Trim "Max W. Pohle, a dentist, had acquired the property by the late 1940s." Can "had" be eliminated?
  • Done. - EG
• External link has URL named "Official website" which links to https://usonia1.com/ Even after clicking on that link, it is not clear who the owner/publisher of that website is. Is it UNESCO (big logo on that page)? Some F. L. Wright-related organization/trust? or the current homeowners? Readers will want some clue about who the publisher/author is of the website before clicking on the link. Can some words be added to the external link text to let readers know who the publisher/author is?
  • The website is actually run by James Dennis, the homeowner. He put his email and address (which to be fair is this house's address) in the contact section. - EG
• Detail: "The house's floor plan is arranged around a 2-by-4-foot (0.61 by 1.22 m) grid ...." Consider adding detail that the concrete slab actually was poured with deep slots/joints on that 2x4 grid. And perhaps clarify that most of the house's walls were exactly on those joints.
  • Done. - EG
• Floor coverings? The article says the kitchen floor was covered in wood; but I don't see what the rest of the house had. A later owner is ridiculed for covering the floors in carpeting. I guess that means the non-kitchen parts of the house were plain concrete? Maybe with area rugs? That makes sense, since the effectiveness of the in-floor heating would be diminished if there was a layer over the concrete. In any case, the article should say what the flooring of the non-kitchen rooms was.
  • The floor is indeed made of concrete. Wood is used in the kitchen as a surface finish, but the rest of the concrete floor slab is unfinished (i.e. the slab is the floor itself). I've made this a bit more clear. - EG
• Ambiguous "Wright continued to refine the house's architectural features in his later work, devoting his later career to designing Usonian houses." A fast reader (or ESL) might wonder if that means Wright changed the Jacobs 1st house "later". Consider rewording to make it more clear e.g. "Wright continued to refine features from the house when using them in his later works ..." or similar.
  • Clarified. - EG
• Ambiguous "Some of the house's architectural features were popularized after the house's completion." Not clear if that means the Jacob's 1st house specifically was popularized; or if the features were popularized in a general sense (without reference to the Jacob's house). I'm guessing the latter? Consider something like "Some of the features from the house were popularized when Wright reused them in his later works." or "Wright reused some architectural features from the house in his later works ... " etc
  • Clarified. Yes, the specific features were popularized - EG
• Terminology: "thick" vs "wide" "that each board is 9.5 inches (240 mm) thick and that each batten is 3.25 inches (83 mm) thick ..." In the US lumber terms are long, wide, thick (from longest to shortest dimension) so I'm pretty sure "wide" should be used in this context.
  • Here, I used "high" because these boards and battens are laid horizontally. The width (the intermediate dimension) is the up-down dimension (i.e. height), while the length is the left-right dimension. - EG
• Should supply page number (p=851) for chapter/entry within source: McCarter, Robert (2001). "Wright, Frank Lloyd". In Boyer, Paul S. (ed.). The Oxford Companion to United States History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Done. - EG
• Uniformity of source/citation formatting? City/location is supplied for only about half the books. Inconsistent even within the same publisher:
  • The Frank Lloyd Wright Companion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Frank Lloyd Wright: A Biography. University of Chicago Press.
  • Done. - EG
• That's all. Leaning support. Let me know when you've considered the above items. Great article! Noleander (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the detailed review Noleander, I've addressed your comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support on prose, citation/source formatting, and MOS. I have not done an image check or source check. Noleander (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Bgsu98 (6/18/26)

Note: This was originally posted as a drive-by comment: Wright regarded thought the term "United States" primarily refereed to a political union… —> I have read this sentence four times, and still can’t parse the beginning. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98, that sentence is in the Usonia article, not here. I've fixed it. I'll unlink other unnecessary links in my nom statement to prevent confusion. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Lead

• No issues.

Site

• No issues.

History

• "Usonian houses tended to have open plans, geometric floor grids, in-floor heating, and a carport, and they lacked a garage or basement..."
• "Herb was 33 years old and just beginning his career."[16][33] --> This sentence really seems inconsequential to the topic.
• "The family had a modest budget of $5,000 (equivalent to $89,000 in 2024)[21][22][34] or $5,500 (equivalent to $97,000 in 2024) for their new house" --> I would better combine these two: "The family had a modest budget $5,000 to $5,500 for their new house"
• "Herb reflected that he and Katherine had initially wanted a white-brick house in the Dutch Colonial Revival style."[22] --> Again, inconsequential detail.
• What is a "sandwich wall"?
• The family would use only the northern portion of the two lots and would be able to sell off the southernmost 55 feet (17 m) of the site, adjoining a street corner, if they wished. --> Did they, or didn't they?
• Note b is just sort of sitting there out of place.
• "and bequeathed his estate to his wife Ruth (with whom he jointly owned the Toepfer Avenue house) and his three sisters." --> Recommend replacing the parentheses with commas.
• "By the late 1950s, a man named Leonard E. Sweet was recorded as living in the house."
• "The house was also being included in walking tours of historic Madison buildings by the late 1960s."

Architecture

• No issues.

Impact

• No issues.

User:Epicgenius: Is there an image you Frank Lloyd Wright you could add to the article? The article is very well-written, as you can see from the small amount of comments I have above. Please let me know when you've had a chance to examine my comments. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98 Thanks, I appreciate it. I'll look at these in the next few days. As for an image of Wright, File:Frank Lloyd Wright LC-USZ62-36384.jpg depicts him in 1926, a decade before this house was constructed (he was already in his late 50s back then). File:Frank Lloyd Wright portrait.jpg depicts him when he was much older, in his 80s. This house has enough images that an image of Wright is probably not necessary to understand the subject, but I can take a look into adding one of these images. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98, thanks again. I've resolved all of these except for the Dutch Colonial Revival detail, which I think gives a little context to the fact that they almost didn't have Wright design this house. For the Wright photo, do you have a recommendation for which image to use or where the image should go? – Epicgenius (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Epicgenius: I would go ahead and use the picture that's at the top of the Frank Lloyd Wright article. He is such a central presence in this article – and the history of the this house – that leaving him out would seem like a glaring omission. He is much more tied to the story of this house than your usual architect. As far as where in the article, I'll let you decide, but I would suggest closer to the beginning that not.

That sentence about the Dutch Colonial house still sticks out. Looking at the paragraph, you could integrate it a little further back – for example, "The couple wanted to develop a residence where they could live with their newborn daughter, and although they initially wanted a traditional Dutch Colonial Revival house, they could not afford a grand house." You then go on to talk about the finances, which carries over into the next paragraph. As it is now, you start with the finances, then mention a Dutch Colonial house, then back to finances.

"The family would use only the northern portion of the two lots, giving them the option to sell off the southernmost 55 feet (17 m) of the site, adjoining a street corner." Again, did they or didn't they? You can't use "would" to narrate an event in the past. If yes, then it should be "The family only used the northern portion of the two lots, giving them the option to sell off the southernmost 55 feet (17 m) of the site, which adjoined a street corner." Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good, I've rearranged the sentences a bit and added an image of Wright near the beginning. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I think my third paragraph right above your response was added mid-edit. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I must have missed that. Yes, I meant "the family used only the northern portion..." – Epicgenius (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Comments to follow. MSincccc (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  There's little for me to add beyond a few minor prose tweaks or additions, which I may make if I have the time. Support on prose. Best, MSincccc (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Generalissima

I'll do a source review.

• Article uses a lot of good academic architectural sources, alongside suitable newspaper coverage.
• Dates are consistently formatted.
• Good use of newspaper.com clippings.
• You're a bit inconsistent about linking publishers - you link the National Park Service for the NRHP listings, but not for any of the other sources.
• Newspaper headlines should either be consistently sentence case or consistently title case.
• One book has an OCLC, but the others don't; be consistent on whether to include that.

@Epicgenius: All in all pretty minor issues. Give me a ping when you're ready! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 12:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks G. I just got back from Wikimania, so am a bit tired, but will look at this within the next few days. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Generalissima, thanks again for the review. I've made all the above changes you mentioned (removed OCLC and links to publishers, converted the headlines to title case for consistency). – Epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I hope you had fun at Wikimania! Everything looks good to me - pass on the source review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:42, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Image review

Image review passed ―Howard • 🌽³³ 12:13, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment by A.Cython

An interesting biography about a Canadian architect. Overall, the article is well-written and sourced. I only have some minor comments.

• it had been commissioned in 1885 → it was commissioned in 1885
  • Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• become junior partner → become a junior partner
  • Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• an 1989 fire → a 1989 fire
  • Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• (now Ontario) at the main body, wikilinked? I do not think WP:SEAOFBLUE applies here
  • Sea of blue doesn't apply here, but MOS:GEOLINK does, which precludes linking Canada West. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    • [AC] Thanks
• The paragraph starting Several of Durand has several sentences that use ";" and I feel some of them would be better without to improve the reading flow.
  • Swapped out one. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• This is equivalent to $7,338,000 in 2025 citation for how this is estimated?
  • Template:Inflation derives its data for Canada from several sources. Its method for calculations are outlined in the template documentation. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• In the "Notes" section inline parenthetical referencing is used, which is deprecated per WP:PAREN. A.Cython(talk) 03:37, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • As per WP:PAREN, parenthetical referencing is deprecated in the article body. It is explicitly allowed for explanatory footnotes ("Inline parenthetical referencing is deprecated on Wikipedia.[note 7] This includes short citations in parentheses placed within the article text itself, such as (Smith 2010, p. 1). ... This also does not affect explanatory footnotes.") — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    • While technically legal, it stills feels off. Each note is small and comparable in size with the length of the parenthetical reference, so as a reader I was not particularly fond of reading the notes. I suppose this is a cosmetic/subjective issue.
      • I know personally my preference is for parentheticals in end-notes to avoid a third click. It's a relatively rare style, but I've been using it consistently for most of my Wikipedia life. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

      Understood.A.Cython(talk) 21:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi A.Cython, and thank you for the review. I have responded above. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support A.Cython(talk) 21:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks muchly! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

I don't know if I'll do a full review or not, but for now I just want to note that the image gallery in the Selected works section should not be using hover for the captions per MOS:NOHOVER. RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Hover removed. Thank you. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Digging in a bit more...

• I'm finding Early life and career a little confusing. When you say Durand was sent to study, it's not clear if you're talking about James or George. What I usually do in these sorts of sections is switch to using first names to refer to the family members. Also, is it important to note William Robinson relationship to Thomas Young? I don't think it adds anything to our understanding of George, so I'd leave that out.
  • Added "George". As for Young, at the time Canadian architects did not generally receive formal training in schools, academies, etc., but instead apprenticed formally or informally and learned the trade. Mentioning Robinson's link to Young, an established architect (despite the abysmal quality of his article), both establishes Robinson's credentials and positions Durand within the broader constellation of Canadian architecture. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
• During the construction of the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa what year was this?
  • Parliament was built between 1859 and 1876. Durand was certainly not there the entire time - he would have been nine at the time of groundbreaking - and the source doesn't give a date span. I haven't been able to confirm his involvement in Parliament's construction in other sources. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
• lauded by Commissioner W.A. Rice what was he commissioner of?
  • Not in the source, and I've not been able to confirm his position anywhere else. The source cites a letter addressed to Durand that was held by his great-granddaughter, and that is the type of material that would not have more information. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
• After some time in Maine at a granite works, as above, what span of years was he there? And what was he doing? I wouldn't think a granite works would need an architect.
  • Source says one year, so 1857–1858. As for the specific position, unclear; Tausky & Distefano cite an obituary, which would not have gone into detail about something before his rise to prominence.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
• and the Charles Murray House where was this?
  • Both in London. Added — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
• preparing a new separate school model where was this?
  • London. Added. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
• In London, the men completed the Talbot Street Baptist Church, a 920-capacity building with prominent pinnacles and a bell-cote, as well as the Masonic Temple and Grand Opera House (1880–1881), a four-storey multifunctional building that occupied 43 by 34 metres (142 ft × 110 ft) on one of the city's main intersections.[b][17] I'd break that up into two sentences.
  • Ah, yes, as the previous sentence was a mouthful. Split. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
• reported aggregate tenders of CA$250,000 in 1882 Use {{inflation}}, and likewise in other places you cite monetary values.
  • The inflation template is used in footnotes. I normally use it in running text, but given how many numbers I felt that the footnote approach worked better here (articles by Schrocat normally use that format). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
• The Later life and death section seems a bit odd. I would expect it to be discussing what he did after he ended his professional carrer. I'd break out about the first half of it into a Late career (or something like that) section, then pick up with "In 1889, he chaired a meeting ..."
  • I'm not keen on breaking this into two sections, but I've tried retitling. Thoughts? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  Um, to be honest, I'm not too excited about that section heading. RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  Alright, tried something else. I'm not keen on one-paragraph sections (I think it's a potential MOS:OVERSECTION issue) but the paragraph is well developed and stands alright on its own. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• Durand was contracted by Minister of Education George William Ross to design a new building for Upper Canada College in Toronto,[30] after touring several schools in the Eastern United States.[31] this is a bit confusing. Was it Ross who did the touring or Durand? Or did Ross want Durand to tour these other schools and then come back and design a new building?
  • Refactored.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
• focus on his health, with Fred Henry in charge of everyday business this is the first we've heard of Henry. Who is he?
  • An apprentice
• have in attendance over two hundred Freemasons I'm guessing Durand was a Freemason; this should be mentioned somewhere earlier.
  • It is, explanatory note B. I've refactored to include the Freemason membership in the running text. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
• His estate was liquidated and distributed to his widow I think you want "and the proceeds distrubuted ..."
  • Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
• Nancy Z. Tausky and Lynne D. Distefano write in their survey Perhaps "wrote" (past tense)?
  • Went with "wrote", as the entirety of the passage is in the past tense. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• Under Style, it's really weird what you did with the Perth County Courthouse images. It took me a while to figure out that it's two distinct images placed adjacent to each other to look like one. I strongly advise you don't do that. If you really want to take two images and make them into a composite, do that off-line and upload the composite as one image and clearly label it as a composite. Or, lay these out as two images showing different details. Also, don't specify absolute width in pixels.
  • Is there any specific guideline that precludes {{Multiple image}} from being used in FAs? Unfortunately, the template also doesn't allow a floating width. I can replace with a composite, but given that we already have a template that can handle two images I don't see a reason to
    • Thinking it over, I've decided to swap in a composite. I still think multiple image is more elegant, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to use it and avoid having a specified absolute width. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

High arched windows

Terra cotta relief

Details of the Perth County Courthouse. Polychromatic masonry can be seen in both examples.

I'm still having issues here. The real problem is not the use of {{Multiple image}} but the way the two images were juxtaposed made it look like an actual photo of the building, i.e. those windows really are immediately adjacent to the terra cotta relief. What I was hoping for (and my apologies for not elucidating this well) was a layout which makes it clear that this is two distinct details from different parts of the building. Maybe this works better?

• I had included a solid black line in the composite to make the distinction, but I've decided to refactor (though I went with a header to better contextualize the images). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Yeah, modulo hard-coding the width (which I've boldly fixed), I like that version. RoySmith (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
    • 200px is quite small on a 4k monitor... I do wish the template allowed autoscaling. I've moved to 300px, but if push comes to shove its not something I feel too strongly about either way. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

      Well, let's see what other people say. If nobody else objects, I'll (grudgingly) go along with that, but I'm not seeing what's so special about this image that the defaults aren't good enough.

      I do feel obligation to note that MOS:IMGSIZE says "Except with very good reason, a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 17px) should not be specified, because it ignores the user's base width setting." That being said, I will confess that I used frame-width = 250 on the map in Big Duck, claiming that "to match the default image thumbnails" is a very good reason :-) In general, I think it's best to just go with defaults because whatever you pick that looks good for you, may not make sense for somebody else who has a different size screen, or is viewing wikipedia on their X-Box, or using some kind of assistive technology, etc. The more you let things go with the defaults, the more likely it is those environments will be able to do something sane with the image. RoySmith (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

      Agree. I tend to have my images larger (though the new default large is larger than the previous 300px default), in part to break up the text a bit. I've shrunk to 250 - not as bad as the default 200, and as you mentioned, standard for most users. I do wish I understood code well enough to try and get the template to use upright scaling factor, but that Wikicode may as well be Greek to me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• After Durand's death, initial reports suggested that George Lloyd of Detroit, Michigan, would acquire it.[53] what is "it"?
  • His firm. Refactored. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
• able to follow developments in American and French architecture through his subscriptions to ... Is it really noteworthy that an architect would subscribe to professional journals in his field?
  • Not on its own, but this contextualizes his evolving eclectic style discussed above. He was relatively on top of Richardsonian Romanesque and other newly emerging styles through his access to international publications.

That's it for me. Overall, I like it. I'll probably come back another day and give it another read-through. Most likely after other reviewers have had a chance to look at it. RoySmith (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks again, RoySmith! Comments above. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not really up on how {{sfn}} is supposed to work, but you've got:

cite book
|title=Victorian Architecture in London and Southwestern Ontario: Symbols of Aspiration
|jstor=10.3138/j.ctvfrxbbj

I don't think the jstor field is right. You've got a DOI stuffed in there. It's supposed to have a JSTOR id.

• I agree it looks weird, but that is how it's presented (direct link). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I just gave this another quick read. I'm happy with what I see, so support based mostly on WP:FACR 1a ("prose is engaging and of a professional standard") RoySmith (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Thank you muchly for the review! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

The inline citations rely upon "Tausky & Distefano 2018" for most of the sourcing, so I did a search for additional sources that could potentially be used as inline citations. I only found three sources that could be added to the article:

• "Early Stages: Theatre in Ontario 1800 - 1914" by Saddlemyer, Anne, : Project Muse access can be requested at WP:LIBRARY. The information concerns his involvement in the Grand Opera House in London and Petrolia town hall.
• "Toronto, No Mean City: Third Edition, Revised" by Eric Arthur and Stephen Otto : has a short bio on Durand, mostly related to Upper Canada College
• "100 Fascinating Londoners" The entry is written by Tausky, but its not much information.

Once these are assessed (and incorporated as deemed necessary) I'll take a closer look at the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• Thank you for the look. I appreciate that Tausky and Distefano are heavily cited here, but that's indeed the lay of the literature - theirs is the only book-length source dealing with the firm, and thus cited more heavily. I have incorporated Fascinating Londoners and will look at for the other two after work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Alright, apparently I had Early Stages sitting around from when I wrote Victoria Hall. Z1720, I've reviewed the other two sources and incorporated one piece of information from No Mean City. Early Stages does not have much biographic information, though between its coverage of the Masonic Temple and Tausky & Distefano, there seems to be enough to write an article on the short-lived hall. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• I see that RoySmith started a review today. Please ping me after it is concluded, and I'll take a further look. As for Tausky and Distefano source: having only one book on a topic is typical of Canadian history, so I am not surprised on the reliance in this article (I had the same problem with John Rolph and Types Riot). I was not able to find additional sources for Durand in databases I have access to, so I think this article fulfils 1c of WP:WIAFA. Z1720 (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  Other than continuing to nag Chris about the image and the section heading, I've done all I'm going to do for now, so don't let me hold you up. RoySmith (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  Well, actually, I was curious so I asked Claude if there was anything else @Crisco 1492 I'll leave it up to you to look at the suggestions there and figure out if any of them are useful. RoySmith (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  That's interesting. It does reflect my understanding of the literature. The letter of recommendation from Fuller is quoted at length in the source, and reads "Mr G.F. Durand was for upwards of six years my principal and confidential assistant and during that period had chief control of all the works at the new Capitol of this State which was then being erected under my Superintendence; his duties required extraordinary skill and accuracy and although all matters in relation to these works were subject annually to the most severe Legislative investigations requiring some very complicated calculations and detailed estimates, in no case were the services or the evidence or the integrity of Mr Durand called into question". "Upward of six years" suggests to me that Durand was with him as early as 1869, which would have been just before the Albany contract (and put him at nineteen, a feasible age for an apprenticeship), but that's veering a bit close to OR territory. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• Removed. Do I also need to remove the "total_width =" parameter from the {{multiple image}} template, or is that different? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• It's different in that it doesn't make a difference whether it's there or not - see the "be aware" note at the top of {{Multiple image}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Lead images are missing alts

• Added. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• What is the copyright status of the reliefs themselves?

• PD. Maryon died in 1924 (102 years ago), and on top of that, we can assume publication in 1921. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Can tagging be added to the image description pages? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, done. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• File:Edith_Maryon.jpg: when and where was this first published, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?

• This is presumably a studio photo, given the pose, lighting, and circular format (seen here); as such, we can infer publication by sale at the time of the photo. Raab says it is from around the time that Maryon met Steiner (~1912), meaning that it was most likely taken in England. Copyright would have expired 70 years later, as the work on an unknown author. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• File:Rudolf_Steiner_-_Aura_of_Theo_Faiss.png needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Added. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

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

Background

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

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

    Reywas92, I've removed the in-sentence links. Any further thoughts re your comments below? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

• Link to Geneva?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Theo Faiss was born in Brazil on 1 July 1907, as the first of four children of Albert and Ida Faiss.
  • We could drop "as" here.
    • Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
• In the first half of 1913 they settled in Dornach in order to be near an anthroposophical institute
  • Drop "in order to"?
    • Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
• By dusk, however, he had not returned;
  • Do we need "however" here?
    • Removed. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• "involved much of the town, and came across" → "a search involving much of the town came across"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, MSincccc. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Themes

• Could we avoid beginning multiple sentences with "To Von Halle"?

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• The lack of continued protection, however, is to von Halle why the Goetheanum was able to burn as it did at the end of 1922.
  • Could we rephrase "is to von Halle why" as "is, according to von Halle, why"?
    • Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Provenance

• At this point he became aware of a bronze version located in the Netherlands, although the owners (Dr. F. I. Steffelaar-Moulijn and Dr. W Steffelaar) did not know how it ended up there.
  • Could we omit "located"?
    • Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Bottom line

• That's all from me and the lead section is fine as it is. Best, MSincccc (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  Many thanks, MSincccc. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's taken some time coming, but here it is: I will support the nomination. MSincccc (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Crystal Drawers

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

I apologize for the delay, I’ve been busy with some personal issues for the past week, which has slowed down my editing altogether. I will try to do my review of the article tomorrow. Crystal Drawers 🎖️ ^{(wanna talk?)} 01:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

No worries, Crystal Drawers, hope things are okay on your end. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Lead

• “to commemorate Theo Faiss, a seven-year-old boy who” — Consider "to commemorate the seven-year-old Theo Faiss, a boy who" to streamline the sentence a bit

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• What do you mean by “which are seen in bronze and plaster”? Seen where? Also, I feel “two versions of the relief, one in bronze and one in plaster” would make more sense

• "are seen" meant "exist", but it was unclear, as you say. Now Maryon made two versions of the relief; both were cast in plaster, and at least the second was also cast in bronze. --Usernameunique (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Is the bottom being blank in the second version relevant enough to include in the Lead?

• Yes, because that's the main difference between the two versions. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Could you combine any two of the paragraphs to make it only 3? Right now, they’re all quite short and I feel a combination of two would make it more readable

• I'm struggling a bit to think of ways to do so. As it stands, the first paragraph is the overview, the second describes the relief, the third summarizes the various interpretations of the relief, and the fourth summarizes its significance. I'm not sure the benefit of combining paragraphs is that large, especially given the benefit of keeping the different topics separate. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Background

• "and in Geneva, and" — Could you change the second "and" to avoid repetition?

• Done: Educated there and in Geneva, she later ... --Usernameunique (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• I feel like stuff about how old she was from 1899 to 1912 makes this Background section feel bloated, could you try to go back and ensure there aren’t any other unnecessary details included here? This is my main issue with the section as a whole, where the prose is good but the amount of context feels unnecessary

• I've taken a crack at removing some details from the Maryon and Faiss sections. If you see anything else that you don't think is relevant in the light of the relief, feel free to point it out. --Usernameunique (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• "and came across an overturned furniture wagon.[14][24] Righting the wagon revealed the body of Faiss underneath." — Consider "and came across an overturned furniture wagon, with the body of Faiss underneath.[14]"

• Done. There's a slight nuance here (explored in the article on Faiss), which is that the wagon was discovered quickly, but it took some hours to right it—Faiss's body was thus not discovered for some time. But we don't need to deal with that nuance here. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry again for making you wait so long. Above are my comments for the Lead and Background section. When I get home later, I’ll review the remaining sections :) Crystal Drawers 🎖️ ^{(wanna talk?)} 16:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

No problem at all, Crystal Drawers. Thanks for the comments so far; response above. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Crystal Drawers, is there any more to come from you? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Gog. Yes, I will continue and finish the review now, and have started with the next section below. Crystal Drawers 🎖️ ^{(wanna talk?)} 01:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again, Crystal Drawers. Responded to your new comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Support Crystal Drawers 🎖️ ^{(wanna talk?)} 02:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Description

• "based on stylistic characteristics, Raab suggests that the second version postdates the first" — I’m not sure I understand what you mean?

• Changed to Raab suggests that the second version was made after the first. I know it sounds a bit like saying "the second version is the second", although I think Raab treated the first one first primarily because it was the only one of which he was aware when he began writing, so it's still important to clarify that the second version is, indeed, suggested to have been made later. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "A woman, likely Faiss's mother," — It’s already been established twice beforehand that it might’ve been his mother, does it not to be stated again?

• True, there's some redundancy there. Removed suggested to be either Faiss and his parents, or Faiss, his mother, and Steiner in the sentence a few before. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Themes

• Why do a lot of sentences have 3 citations? Are this many needed? It’s a little distracting to see so many in a row

• The main reason is that a number of von Halle's works discuss Raab's interpretations, but disagree with them and put forth other interpretations. She also has a number of books/articles that discuss the relief, which are all cited here. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Faiss's outstretched arms suggest that he is ready for sacrifice; he is to be" — In previous sections, the semicolon has a space before and after it, but it doesn’t here. Could you stick to one?

• I'm not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean that you see a space before some semicolons (e.g., "sacrifice ; he" as opposed to "sacrifice; he")? I don't see any instances of those. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• What does "documentary value" mean? I feel like some over complicated terms are used that either aren’t elaborated on or are linked to another article, forcing the reader to abandon what they’re reading to go to something else, which is generally discouraged

• Raab says Seltsamerweise ist in keinem der Nachschlagewerke – außer in Christoph Lindenbergs Chronik und im Werkverzeichnis – des für den Bau in geistiger Hinsicht so wichtigen Lebensopfers von Theo Faiss gedacht. So gewinnt diese Reliefplastik auch einen dokumentarischen Wert. Google translates this to Curiously, none of the reference works – with the exception of Christoph Lindenberg's chronicle and the catalogue of works – mention the personal sacrifice made by Theo Faiss, a sacrifice of such spiritual significance to the building's construction. Thus, this relief sculpture also acquires documentary value. I take this to mean that he considers Faiss's death under-reported in some quarters, and that the relief thus helps to fill that gap. Frankly, however, I'm a bit unclear about the distinction he's making by referring to "reference" works, since there are a number of works other than the two he mentions which do discuss Faiss, and of which he was aware when he wrote that sentence. (I'm also unclear what "catalogue" he means. Is there one of Maryon's works? If so, I'd love to find it, but I haven't been able to yet.) Given all that, I've reworded this part to Beyond the specific event depicted, Raab terms the work the "true monument" to Faiss and his death. He states that the work serves as a reminder of both Faiss and his sacrifice, and serves a dual role as a memento mori. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Provenance

• All looks good

Reywas92

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

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

• Following up on this, I've moved the mantram to a quotation box and removed the versions read to soldiers, which shortens things considerably. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• As was noted at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Serpent labret with articulated tongue/archive1, citations are not actually needed after every single sentence. Raab pp. 250–253 is cited eleven times in eleven sentences in the Description section. This is ridiclous WP:OVERCITE and goes against Wikipedia:When to cite#Text–source relationship ("If you write a multi-sentence paragraph that draws on material from one source, the source need not be cited after every single sentence unless the material is particularly contentious.") and Wikipedia:Inline citation#Citation density ("Everything in that paragraph deals with the same, single subject from the same source and can therefore be supported by a single inline citation.")

• As a general matter, "The best distance between the material and the citation is a matter of judgment." This is also mentioned in the WP:When to cite essay, two sentences before the portion that you quote. Just because a cite per sentence is not required does not mean that it is not permitted, and there are good reasons to go the extra mile. Among other reasons, doing so makes clear which sources/pages support which information, and helps protect text–source integrity as additional edits are made. It's worth noting that in some professional settings (including my own) citing every sentence is routine; it is no big outlier, and it is my practice in every article that I write here.

To take your specific example (Raab pp. 250–253 is cited eleven times in eleven sentences in the Description section), this isn't strictly correct; six different different pages or ranges are used (e.g., 249–251, or 249 and 251, or just 253). Too, not all of the information in this section is uncontested; Raab and von Halle have different interpretations of who the bottom figures in the first version are, making precise citing important. At the end of the day, however, having one or two cites at the end of each sentence is hardly out of the ordinary, and nothing like the extreme examples (such as fifteen cites) used in the essay WP:OVERCITE. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• The Description, Themes, and Provenance section contains dozens of footnotes, numbers 50–84 used 73 times. But these are all simply Raab pp. 249–254; von Halle 2010 and 2011a, b, c (which are the same piece, translated and split/duplicated into multiple issues); Sam 2007 p. 10 (which I can't access online); and Steiner. Except von Halle 2010/11a and 2011b do not mention Maryon's artwork, nor does Steiner, being a primary source that predates the artwork. The only sources that discuss the article's subject are a few pages of Raab's biography of Edith Maryon, a portion of von Halle's essay, and one page by Sam 2007! This page feels more like a ref bomb bloated by background and heavily reliant on one source (Raab) rather than a notable topic and featured article.

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

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

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

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

    Reywas92, checking again to see if you have further comments, or responses to the above. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

    Sorry missed your previous comment. I feel like there's still a lot of duplication with the Theo Faiss article and a lot of wordiness to his background that doesn't seem related to the artwork, but I guess it's fine. — Reywas92^Talk 17:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

    Thanks, Reywas92. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Reywas92, 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) 19:40, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Source review

Aside from any issue raised by Reywas92, is it my impression that many of the sources are affiliated with Steiner or anthroposophy? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, most of the main authors are anthroposophists, though (other than the man himself) they post-date Steiner. I would analogize it to a Christian writing about a Christian-themed artwork: the research is reliable, one simply has to be careful to frame beliefs as beliefs rather than facts. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if any unaffiliated sources have discussed the topic. Feels like article's might end up being non-neutral if not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I'd be happy to discuss any specific instances of lack of neutrality that you believe you see. But suggesting that an author is religious, so cannot be used as a source, makes no sense, and is contrary to policy. Per the policy on reliable sources, in a section discussing religious and other viewpoints, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Similarly, the policy on neutrality has a section on religion which supports including the viewpoints of adherents of a religion.

In writing this article, I have been very careful about how to handle the discussion of anthroposophical beliefs. Again, if you think there are any issues with how it has been handled, I would be happy to discuss. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, my question isn't about the propriety of using dependent sources, but about whether an article sourced entirely to dependent sources is fine. That's a different policy (WP:NPOV) than the one about the suitability of sources (WP:RS) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for the reply. The fact that the authors hold religious viewpoints doesn't mean the sources are dependent. Imagine a Christian researcher were writing about The Immaculate Conception. The fact that the researcher believed that there was, in fact, an immaculate conception would not by that fact alone make the research unreliable. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Mmok, but be kind to anyone looking for wholly independent sources too. My impression is that such issues can lead to subtle problems with articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

BorgQueen

• Thank you for writing this article on such a neglected topic. My main concerns relate to its accessibility. I'm somewhat familiar with Theosophy and I recall that Steiner was originally a Theosophist, so I personally have no problem understanding the article; however, we need to keep the lay reader in mind. For example, Maryon was interested in the esoteric by 1909 could use a link for "esoteric", but even then MOS:NOFORCELINK says: Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links. Terms like "eurythmy", "mantram", "karmic event" (karma is nowadays a fairly well-known concept, but what kind of event could it be?), and "etheric body" would probably need parenthetical glosses or otherwise written in such a way that is understandable to lay readers. BorgQueen (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks very much, BorgQueen. I'll list these out below and respond as I go. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

esoteric: I changed this to Maryon began exploring occult beliefs at least as early as 1909, under the assumption that occult is more generally understood than esotericism. Incidentally, the reason we know this is that she joined the Stella Matutina in that year.

eurythmy: I think this one is already glossed with the following clause, i.e., the eurythmy figures depicting an anthroposophical form of dance.

mantram: Now by reading a mantram, or blessing, adapted.

karmic event: Changed this to an intentional spiritual event, and linked karma when used later down.

etheric body: Here, as with astral body and terrestrial being, I have to admit to being well outside of my wheelhouse. Reading Steiner's lectures, or Anthroposophy#Nature of the human being, gives a general sense, albeit not one that I think would be fit to put down here in confident Wikivoice. But plumbing the depths of anthroposophical belief is probably outside the scope of this article anyways: The salient thing is that Steiner believed in seven-year spiritual cycles. That being the case, I've made a couple edits so that we now have The interpretation relies on Steiner's belief that humans develop in seven-year spiritual cycles: forming what he termed an etheric body over the first seven years, an astral body from seven to fourteen, and the remainder of one's terrestrial being from fourteen to twenty-one. How does that look?

Looks much better now. I’ve clarified, in the Maryon section, Steiner as the founder of anthroposophy, and while at it, clarified what anthroposophy basically is. Also I think it’s misleading to call eurythmy as dance; reworded it to movement art. BorgQueen (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Those edits are great, thank you. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Usernameunique @RoySmith (I think) I’ve fixed memento mori. It’s a common term in art history, but many lay readers won’t know what it is. BorgQueen (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

BorgQueen, I'm not sure that Raab is using the term memento mori in its classic sense, i.e., as a reminder of the death of the viewer. Rather, the way he uses the term, it feels more like he thinks the relief is a reminder of the death of Faiss. The passage in question is Der Charakter eines lebendigen memento mori wird durch den späten Zeitpunkt der Entstehung der Plakette unterstrichen. Sie ist signiert und datiert, wobei vom beschädigten Datum nur die Jahreszahl zu identifizieren ist: l 921. Dies ist die Bestätigung der aus Stilgründen erwachsenen Vermutung, daß diese Erinnerung an den Unfalltod von Theo Faiss sieben Jahre später - wahrscheinlich im Herbst - zustande kam. Google Translate informs me that this means "The plaque’s character as a living memento mori is underscored by the late date of its creation. It is signed and dated, though only the year—1921—can be deciphered from the damaged date inscription. This confirms the hypothesis, originally based on stylistic grounds, that this memorial commemorating the accidental death of Theo Faiss was produced seven years later—likely in the autumn." I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts also. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@Usernameunique Rephrased accordingly. What do you think? BorgQueen (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, BorgQueen. Looks good to me, and I've made a similar edit where the phrase appears in the body of the article. I've removed the word sacrifice, however, as (though I think it was in Raab's voice) it came close to sounding like Wikivoice. Generally speaking, I've tried to be quite neutral in the presentation of this article—it doesn't refer to Faiss's death as an accident, for example, but it also doesn't refer to it as a sacrifice. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Overall the article currently looks fine to me, and is certainly an enjoyable GA; however I’m too involved now to see it objectively. I’d be interested in hearing what @RoySmith feels. BorgQueen (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

I've only read through this quickly. I'm not sure if I'll do a deep dive, but my overall impression is that I like it. Regardless of whether I end up doing a full review, I do want to point out a couple of items I've noticed.

• I agree with BorgQueen about the need to explain some vocabulary which may not familiar to readers. The first one I came upon was "wagon", but maybe that's OK as standard diction in British English. Still, memento mori, canteen, mantram, astral, Goetheanum leave me lost.

• As before, I'll take these in turn:

Wagon: Added that it was a horse-drawn wagon, and linked the latter word.

Memento mori: Addressed above.

Canteen: This is translated from the German word de:Kantine, which, as far as I can tell, basically means cafeteria, and shares a sense of a scholastic or work setting. According to Raab, it was directly below the grounds of the Goetheanum, at the corner of Herzentalstrasse and Domeckstrass; it's also clearly a place that was known to those in Steiner's circle, as can be seen from the familiar references to it here. My best guess is that it was connected in some sense to the society, and perhaps served as a something of a dining hall and community space—the latter of which would make sense if Faiss's body was laid out there. But without sources with more detail, I'm hesitant to go further.

Astral: Addressed above in BorgQueen's comments.

Goetheanum: The article already notes that this was a building, although the unconventional word does not help the lay reader. I've added a photograph of the building (the one that burned down) to clear things up a bit.

• I think you also have a lot of over-referencing. There's many places where you have two, three, or more citations where I suspect a single one would suffice. Surely "Theo Faiss was born in Brazil on 1 July 1907.[14][15][16]" doesn't require three sources to verify his date of birth? Likewise "The bottom third depicts three individuals.[65][66]": do we really need two different sources to back up this one simple fact? These are just two examples.

• I've combined a few of these (where it's an original and a translation), and removed a few (including one from your first example). Substantiating the sentence, however, is not the only reason to provide a citatation; another is to help users find additional information on the subject. In the first of your examples, the first cite is to a scholarly book, and the second is to an article published by Faiss's descendants that includes more details and photographs. As for the second example, the question of who those three individuals are is contested (Raab says the man is Faiss's father; von Halle says it's Steiner), so each of them get a cite. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much for stopping by, RoySmith, especially so soon after taking the reins at Clair Blank. Responses to all above; where your comments overlapped with BorgQueen's, I've responded there. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Phase two

In which our hero, having previously disassociated himself from the review collective, finds himself re-assimilated. BorgQueen is uncertain if this is just an enjoyable GA, or something more and has called upon this member of the hive to assist in that determination. I will comply...

• I like to treat the lead as optional material, i.e. the reader should be able to start at the beginning of the main text and follow from there. If the reader does that here, they find they started reading an article titled "In Memory of Theo Faiss" but they're being told about some Edith Maryon person who they've never heard of before. So I would start out with a quick explanation of what's going on: "In Memory of Theo Faiss" is a pair of sculptures by Edith Maryon commemorating Theo Faiss. A couple of sentences should be enough to set the scene. Then you can pick up with what you've got now.

• That's basically the point of the lead; case in point, your proposed sentence ("In Memory of Theo Faiss" is a pair of sculptures by Edith Maryon commemorating Theo Faiss) closely tracks the first sentence of the existing lead. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• she later studied art at institutions including the Royal College of Art.[3] I would drop "studied art". What else would she be studying at the RC of A?

• Dropped "art" (kept "studied", as we need a verb). --Usernameunique (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Steiner had resolved to centre the anthroposophical movement and build the Goetheanum as its central structure. rephrase to avoid repetition of centre/central.

• The "central structure" is now the "headquarters". --Usernameunique (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• until her death in 1924, Maryon rarely left That's an odd phrase, implying that after her death, she left more often.

• Well, that leaves out the beginning of the sentence, which clarified that the period in question was "Over the next decade". But I've rephrased to "From then until her death in 1924, Maryon rarely left." --Usernameunique (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• They had had lived in Stuttgart, Germany Is the "had had" intentional? Also, who is "They" referring to? Theo or Albert and Ida? I'm pretty sure it's Albert and Ida, but could be made more clear.

• That's a typo. This was originally "The parents had", but I changed it due to comments above. I'm very happy to change it back. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• was well liked and considered responsible who considered him so?

• The community as a whole, as I understand it. Raab says that Faiss was "particularly likeable seven-year-old boy" and "responsible". Steiner 2023 p. 89 says that "The eldest of the children, a boy of seven who was wide-awake intellectually but also had quite particular heart-qualities, was indeed something of a Sun child. One felt deeply drawn to the soul of this child, even if one saw him only fleetingly every now and then." --Usernameunique (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• I’ve added "by the community" and "by the local community". BorgQueen (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• His father had been called up for military service in the German Army.[19] A bit of an awkward sentence, disconnected from the ones before and after. Maybe something like "His father had been called up for military service in the German Army at that time and partly to fill ..."

• Added a transition clause: By October 1914, Faiss, then seven years old, was well liked and considered responsible by the local community. At seven, he was also the oldest male member of the household, for his father had been called up for military service in the German Army. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• asked Faiss to collect groceries from a canteen. as noted earlier, you really need to explain what a canteen is.

• This was responded to at some length above. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Usernameunique How about "… canteen (small cafeteria)" or a similar wording BorgQueen (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Well, yes, you explained it to the reviewers. Now you need to explain it to the reader. RoySmith (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• All right, all right, if you insist. (Edit: In case it doesn't translate over the WWW, that was meant in jest. I agree we should be precise if possible!) As it turns out, I was able to find a source on this that clarifies that it is now a building known as the Speishaus, or dining hall. I've thus explained that it was a dining hall. Of course, that source also contradicts others by saying that Faiss was dropping off groceries rather than picking them up, so I've adjusted that here (and added the alternate story to Theo Faiss, though it's not needed here). --Usernameunique (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• By dusk, he had still not returned. A search involving much of the town discovered his body beneath an overturned horse-drawn wagon laden with furniture. Again, these two sentences could be connected better to enhance the flow. How about "By dusk, he had still not returned; the ensuring search involved much of the town and resulted in his body being discovered beneath an overturned horse-drawn wagon laden with furniture

• Sure (albeit with "discovered his body" rather than "resulted in his body being discovered"). --Usernameunique (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Steiner offered a eulogy at the funeral, held on 10 October, and, that evening, gave the first of his five-part lecture series I'm assuming the punctuation store was having a sale on commas and you picked up the big box? Save some for another sentence.

• They were out of semicolons so I bought what I could. Dropped two of the commas. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Two months later, Albert Faiss himself died in hospital why do you need "himself" here?

• Is it needed? No. Have I removed it? Yes. Did I also take a look at Margaret Sibella Brown and note an unnecessary use of "herself"? No comment. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• showing what he understood to be the boundaries of this "etheric aura".{{refn|group=G|Ätheraura[51] I'm not sure what's broken here, but some bit of wiki markup is apparently not right.

• Looks like I did this while combining cites in response to your comment from a couple days ago. Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Raab suggests that the second version was made after the first.[47] This is confusing. If it's the second version, of course it was made after the first. Is there something else you intended to say here?

• It wasn't the most artful way of saying it, but—before they're ever termed versions 1 and 2—someone has to figure out which came first. Raab is the one who did that. I've rephrased to "Raab terms them the first (earlier) and second (later) versions based on stylistic characteristics". Better? --Usernameunique (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Yeah, that works better, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• There's a thorny problem that I don't know how to solve, regarding the images of the reliefs. They're white-on-white, and thus hard to see any detail. Reading along the descriptions (First version and Second version), I find myself struggling to see in the images the things that are being described in the text. Are there any better images that could be use which show the details better?

• As you say, these are difficult works to photograph, and to see. There are a few other photographs of which I'm aware. Raab has photographs of each version (which are happily included in the example pages here), and there are a couple photographs of the first version in other works. The only photographs that could be added at this point would come through fair use, and I think the best case to be made there would be to add the photo from Raab of the bronze copy of version 2. Do you think that would help? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Those photos are certainly better, if you can figure out how to make the licensing work. Another problem is that the image directly adjacent to the text is of the back of the tablet. It would be easier to follow the description if the photos of the fronts were right there where they're being discussed. RoySmith (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a photo in Beulé Gate by @UndercoverClassicist which had a similar problem. The solution was an annotated version which let the reader see what was being discussed. Perhaps something like that would be possible here? I'm not sure how well that would work, so just an idea. RoySmith (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

For starters, I've added a photograph of the bronze version, under fair use; I don't think we could get away with doing that for the plaster copy of version 1, even though the photograph in Raab is a bit more clear.

An annotated version, however, is an interesting thought; it would also solve the problem of where to put the photo, because we could keep the two photos at the top, but add an annotated one by the description. Are you thinking of labels for each of the elements, or (as with UC's annotated photo) dark lines tracing over some of the more distinctive parts? Either way, I can ask at the illustration workshop. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't have any specific solutions in mind. RoySmith (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Ugh, this is really ugly, but it's kind of a step in the right direction. I cropped out the bottom portion and applied a sophisticated image enhancement algorithm best described as "randomly pushing all the sliders around in an abusive manner to see what would happen". It's pretty bad, but at least the three figures are more visible. If you want to go with this, it really needs to get re-done if, for no other reason, than it should really start from the original high-res scan instead of the lower-res version I happened to grab. It should also probably be done by somebody with greater skill at this sort of work than I have. RoySmith (talk) 10:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Cue a television detective in front of a computer saying "Enhance. Enhance." I've made a request here, although requests that are more complicated can frequently take a decent amount of time before someone takes it. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith, what do you think now? See In Memory of Theo Faiss § Description. Another option that comes to mind would be to see if someone could essentially make a sketch of this version. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith, just following up. It is, I think, ever so slightly better than this line drawing produced by Claude. Yikes. (ChatGPT's effort wasn't terrible, on the other hand, but it didn't retain enough of the relevant details.) --Usernameunique (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Usernameunique Please see WP:AIGI. BorgQueen (talk) 06:00, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, BorgQueen. That image was uploaded in jest—it's just so wildly different from the relief, and rather creepy looking. Now, if it were any good we might be having a different discussion, but we can save that for another day. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the WP:AIGI issue, I'm not, in theory, opposed to using AI for this sort of purpose. For sure, you would have to be clear that it is AI. I could see for example, presenting two images side by side; the original photo and an AI enhanced version for the purpose of analysis, as long as it's clearly labeled as such. I don't think Claude's best attempt here is something we want to use, I'm just saying that I would not totally rule out the possibility. RoySmith (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, RoySmith. I agree with you. In any event, as noted above, I added the contrast version to the article at In Memory of Theo Faiss § Description. How does it look? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• I'm still thinking you've gone overboard with the citations. I see Reywas92 already pointed you at WP:OVERCITE, although for a somewhat different reason.

• Funnily enough, I think this is one of the articles in which I've been most restrained in use of citations. Opinions vary, but having a citation at the end of every sentence is certainly reasonable (and the norm in some professional writing); there are also only a handful of instances here with three, and I think just one with four, and there are good reasons for including those. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

My objection is not to citing every sentence. It's to places where you are using multiple citations where it's obvious one would cover it, as with the date of birth example I originally gave. I'm sorry, but I don't buy the "help users find additional information on the subject" theory. If you really want to make the reader aware of additional source material, that's what a Further reading section is for. RoySmith (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

So, I know the hive mind dislikes uncertainty, but uncertainly is where I find myself. I don't think any of the items I pointed out here are major, but like BorgQueen, I'm having trouble getting all the way to supporting this for FA, at least in its current state. RoySmith (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, RoySmith. Glad our hero heeded the skyborne call of the Roy-signal. Responses above, including one question (re annotation of images). --Usernameunique (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I just gave this another quick read. I'm happy with the changes you've made, so support based on the quality of the prose. RoySmith (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much, RoySmith! --Usernameunique (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Metalicat

• Scope: I have done a short non-specialist pass on lead and body alignment, internal consistency and citation mechanics.

• Lead and provenance: The lead summarises the background, description and interpretations, but not the provenance. The first version's reconstruction from thirteen fragments and Raab's discovery of the second version in 1991 seem significant enough for a brief mention. The nomination statement itself foregrounds both events. Recommend adding one sentence to the lead covering them.

• Good idea. Done: The first version was nearly lost; discovered as 13 broken fragments, it was later reassembled and recast around 1965. The second version was not widely known until 1991. That April Maryon's biographer Rex Raab [de] discovered became aware of a bronze version in the Netherlands, the provenance of which is unknown. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• Description of the second version: The bottom portion, where the first version depicts the earthly Faiss and his parents, is absent. Elsewhere, the article says that the adult man may be either Faiss's father or Steiner, and the Themes section sets out both readings. "His parents" therefore removes the article's own qualification. I suggest: The bottom portion, where the first version depicts the earthly Faiss, his mother, and a man identified as either his father or Steiner, is absent.

• Good catch, and good suggestion. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• Material of the first version: The first version is described throughout as plaster, but the provenance section says it was discovered as thirteen dusty plastic fragments. I understand that "plastic" can describe a moulded sculptural work, but most readers will take it to mean the synthetic material. Recommend something unambiguous, such as thirteen dusty fragments of the relief.

• Although I appreciate you finding reason in my fat fingers, plastic was a typo. Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• Bibliography:
  • The URL in the bibliography entry for Steiner's GA 34 ends in rudolf-steiner-ga-159, which looks like the GA 159 identifier rather than GA 34. Recommend checking the link.
    • Nice catch. Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
  • The 2011a von Halle entry names the translator as Cammerinesi, while the 2011b and 2011c entries give Cammerines. Which spelling is correct?
    • The former. Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
  • The Paull entry is dated 2013, but its DOI is 10.56397/SAA.2023.12.01. Which year is correct?
    • 2023. Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• Small fixes:
  • the ensuring search involved much of the town should be the ensuing search involved much of the town.
    • Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
  • The canteen note has Dorneckstraße dornach, directly beneath. Recommend: Dorneckstraße, directly beneath.
    • Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

These are small points in an absorbing article. The distinction between Raab's and von Halle's interpretations is presented particularly clearly. Happy to revisit as these are addressed. Metalicat (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Metalicat. I've implemented all your comments/suggestions. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support on the scope of my review. The points I raised have been addressed, and I am satisfied with the lead and body alignment, internal consistency and citation mechanics. I have not conducted a source review and leave the source-independence and image questions to the reviewers already examining them. Metalicat (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks very much, Metalicat. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment

The 'See also: Works of Edith Maryon' hatnote in the Edith Maryon section is unwarranted in this article and clutters up the section. The 'Main article: Edith Maryon' hatnote immediately above it is all that's needed, and that article already links to her work quite prominently. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, I tend to agree. BorgQueen (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Changed the "main article" to a combined "see also" so they're both on one line. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's an improvement: the 'Main article' hatnote is the most appropriate one there, even expected, like the 'Main article: Theo Faiss' hatnote that follows.

Earlier I said that the 'See also: Works of Edith Maryon' hatnote is unwarranted in this article; I correct myself: it is warranted, just not in that place. This is one case in which a 'See also' section at the bottom of the article would be in order, since list articles (such as Works of Edith Maryon) usually don't lend themselves well to being linked from the prose, and may not warrant such prominent linking from a hatnote either, while they belong quite naturally to a See also section. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Deeday-UK, done. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, as a heads up, this article now has four supports and image/source reviews. There is an additional review where BorgQueen concluded that the article currently looks fine to me, and is certainly an enjoyable GA; however I’m too involved now to see it objectively, and two drive-by comments, both of which have been addressed (one fully, one within reason). --Usernameunique (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Camilasdandelions

Nice to see this article in FAC again! I just found some small issues:

• "As of 2024, Tangerini was" (both lead and prose) -- I think "remains" would more fit than "was"
• "Beyond a single botany night class" -> "Beyond a single night class in botany"
• "She is also a member of the Guild of Natural Science Illustrators and helped plan the first of its annual meetings in 1979." -- The former is present but the latter is past tense, so it would go like this: "She is also a member of the Guild of Natural Science Illustrators, having helped plan the first of its annual meetings in 1979."
• "Tangerini has published six articles in PhytoKeys, Harvard Papers in Botany, The Botanical Artist, The Plant Press, and The American Gardener.[37][note 3] In addition to writing for The Plant Press, she serves as the newsletter's illustrator." -- I don't think "In addition to writing for The Plant Press" is necessary here because you already mentioned it just before. So try smth like this: "She also serves as the newsletter's illustrator."
• That's all I see! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 22:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• @Camilasdandelions: Thank you for your review. I have addressed a majority of your comments. I am uncertain about the suggestion about The Plant Press. I think that repeating the newsletter name would be necessary, since this sentence is directly after the names of five publications (and three of which are not linked/do not have an article). Although The Plant Press is identified as a newsletter in the endnote, I could see readers being confused about what is being referenced. I could simplify this part to something like, She also serves as the illustrator for The Plant Press, but I wanted to get your feedback before making this change. Thank you again. I appreciate your help, and I hope that you are having a wonderful end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think it's better to keep it then! Thank you for addressing these and sharing your thoughts. Now I support your nomination. Best luck with your FAC :)! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 23:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for your support. If other editors have issue with that part, I would more than happy to revisit this and to try and improve it. Thank you for the kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Image review - pass

Hi Aoba47, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

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

  CC BY-SA 4.0

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

  CC BY 3.0

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

  CC BY 3.0

All images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They have alt-texts and captions. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the image review! Aoba47 (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Looks pretty good, but I'll add a few nitpicks here as I go along. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Tangerini described her vision as her greatest asset while growing up... — "eyesight" might be better than "vision", which could be metaphorical

• I agree that in this context, vision could be read two different ways and eyesight is the better word choice. I have revised this instance. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• ...over 1,000 plant species.—I'd say "more than", but perhaps that's a BE thing?

• I do not have a strong attachment to either version. I am not sure if it is regional variation or not. I have revised this part in favor of "more than". Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• particularly her ability to examine "something an inch from [her] face and see detail— I can do this because I'm very short-sighted in one eye, do we know if that's the reason for her?

• That could be the case, but unfortunately, she does not go into any further detail about this. She only talks about how she had excellent eyesight when she was younger and does not provide any additional context. This article was more focused on her eyesight issues later in life, so that is probably why this does not get any real or substantial follow-up. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• You have duplicate links for Lyman Bradford Smith, American Society of Botanical Artists, Royal Botanic Garden, Sydney and Warren L. Wagner.

• Thank you for pointing this out for me. I imagine that I accidentally inserted the links while revising the article and adding further information. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• camera lucida should be italicised.

• Thank you for catching this for me. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Tangerini observed that her perspective as a botanical illustrator often leads her to notice details that botanists overlook—perhaps lose "botanical" to avoid near-repeat?

• I agree that this would be better. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• I don't think we link countries, you've linked Guyana.

• According to MOS:OVERLINK, countries should generally not be linked. However, this part of the policy does include countries listed under the following: In addition, major examples of the following categories should generally not be linked: I could see some readers being unfamiliar with Guyana or wanting to get further clarifcation about it. I just wanted to explain my rationale for the link, but I can remove it if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• ISBN numbers for books?

• Thank you for catching this for me as well. The books were admittedly a late addition, and for whatever reason, I had completely forgotten about the ISBNs. I have added them for both of the books. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• That's it for now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• @Jimfbleak: Thank you for your review. I greatly appreciate your help. I have addressed everything, except for removing the Guyana link. Just to be clear, I would be more than okay with removing that link, but I just wanted to explain my rationale for its inclusion. Feel free to push back against this. Please let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. I hope that you are having a wonderful start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• All looks good, supporting now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Support from PMC

How am I three days late to this party! Comments will follow. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• "She has taught classes on botanical illustration since 1976 and curated the Smithsonian Catalog of Botanical Illustrations and the NMNH's Botanical Art Collection." Do we have any dates/time ranges on when she curated those things? Otherwise being paired with the other clause it kind of implies she was responsible for that stuff since the 1970s also.

• That is understandable. Unfortunately, I do no have any concrete dates or time ranges for her curatorial work. The sources just say that she has done and is still doing these things. I have tried to break the sentence somewhat, but let me know if further revisions would be beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Para 2 in the lead is organized a bit oddly, in that it goes from an "as of 2024" injury, then back to 1976, then forward to 2005. I might suggest a fix by moving all the stuff about her career history to one para, then all the stuff that isn't a chronological history (tools, appearances, accolades) into the other.

• Could you please further clarify this for me? Apologies for being dense, but I am a bit stuck on how to best approach this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• I have attempted to rearrange the lead in my sandbox, but apologies in advance. The lead is probably my weakest area in terms of writing article. I would greatly appreciate any suggestions or help with this. Thank you for your help. Aoba47 (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Hi, so sorry to have taken so long to get back to this. Yeah I think the version in your sandbox is more cohesive - we get a potted chronological biography and then information about her as an artist more broadly.

• No need to apologies. It has honestly not been that long. We all have lives and other priorities, and FACs in general do take time, so no need to rush or anything on my behalf. Thank you for letting me know about the lead. I have moved the sandbox version into the article. I usually write a lead at the very end of a project, and at that point, I have usually run out of steam. I should take more time with this section in particular for the future. Let me know if this would need any further revisions or general improvements. Aoba47 (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Beyond a single night class..." I think you can cut "when she started her career as a botanical illustrator" as redundant

• Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Over the next three years, Tangerini developed the expertise to work more independently; rather than depending on Smith's sketches, she began conducting plant dissections herself, and instead of following examples of to-scale drawings, she started producing her own enlarged illustrations." This sentence feels a bit knotted up, and follows an equally long sentence. I suggest splitting off the first clause as its own sentence and revising the latter part to something like "Rather than depending on Smith's sketches and examples of to-scale drawings, she began conducting plant dissections and producing her own enlarged illustrations herself."

• I agree with your suggestion. It makes the information more digestable for readers. I have used your recommendation. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• "After graduating from VCUarts, Tangerini returned to the Smithsonian as a full-time staff illustrator in the botany department" it's not clear from the earlier text that Tangerini left the Smithsonian to study at VCU, so "returned to" is a bit surprising for the reader

• Thank you for catching this for me, as "returned to" is the wrong word choice here. Tangerini worked as a freelance illustrator while in college and after graduation, she was promoted to being a full-time employee. I have revised this part, but please let me know if further revisions would beneficial here as well. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat confused by the placement of "Artistic style and process" being before the rest of the "Career" section. It feels strange to interrupt the chronological history of her career with a section about her style (which covers the breadth of her career), and then go back to chronologically detailing her career. (I will continue the review in the order the article is presently in though)

• That is a fair point. The current article structure was suggested during the peer review. The rationale was that this would help to organize the article like "process → achievement → recognition" by first introducing how Tangerini works (process), then what she has achieved from it (achievement), and then telling her impact or influences (recognition). There were concerns for both the peer review and FAC about the prose being too choppy and not being engaging, so I implemented this suggestion to hopefully address these concerns. I can change this if necessary, but I just wanted explain the rationale for this change. This article is very much outside of my comfort zone, so I am not as confident with how to structure and organize this information. Aoba47 (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Mmm. I'm also not a biography person, so I defer to the suggestions of others with more experience in the area, but to me the order feels strange.

• That is fair. Just to be clear, I am more than happy to change this if necessary and if other reviewers have this concern. My biggest struggle with this article was how to best organize and structure this information (ideally in a way that is engaging to readers). I have only really worked on one biography before, but that one was about a singer, so that is quite different from this (that and I am just more comfortable and more experienced with working on a music topic than this kind of topic). This has been a nice learning experience, but again, I can see what you can mean. Aoba47 (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• "She then produces a sketch using a camera lucida to magnify and trace the subject." Suggest -> "Using a camera lucida to magnify and trace the subject, she produces an initial sketch." Mostly to ditch the unnecessary "then"

• Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• "perspective as an illustrator often leads her to notice details" does the source give any examples we could include?

• The article does include an example, but that is tied to a different botanical illustrator, Margaret Mee. The source quotes Tangerini more so to highlight this dynamic between botanical illustrators and botanists. There is a paragraph later in the article about how Tangerini helped to discover a new plant species (Navia aliciae). Maybe this part would be more beneficial there? It could be included either in the prose or as an endnote. It would probably be better and clearer to tie this to a more concerete example. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• I have moved this sentence per a suggestion from a reviewer below. Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• "She also favors traditional" - ditch "also" here

• Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Nevertheless, she values the history of her craft" I think this comes off as somewhat editorial. Like it's implying adopting digital tools might make someone not value the history of their craft, you know? I would revise to maybe something like "Tangerini is interested in preserving historical drawing techniques and has a collection of instruments used by other illustrators, which she describes as "a little history of drawing that is slowly vanishing."" (I might also move this to before the digital tools sentence?)

• I agree with both suggestions. I have used your recommendation and I have moved this sentence before the part about digital tools. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• "She often feels a sense of horror vacui, which she attributes as the reason why her illustrations tend to fill the page as much as possible." this is a bit knotted up in itself, and if you don't understand what horror vacui is, it'll miss for you anyway. Suggest something like "Her illustrations fill as much of the page as possible because of her dislike of empty space, sometimes called horror vacui." You could also do a pipe link instead and skip the Latin phrase.

• I agree. The use of horror vacui comes across as rather pretentious to me now that I look back on it, but that could just be me. I agree with your suggestion, and I have implemented it into the article. I have used a pipe link instead, as I think that would be better for readers. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Everything else above looks good, and again so many apologies for letting this slide for so long.

• No need to apologize. It is not a big deal, and it has not really been that long at all. Thank you again for your help and for your review. Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• I initially didn't love the non-chronological structure of the "Career - Illustration" section but on re-read I think it's grown on me, and I have no prose complaints here through the whole section actually.

• Thank you for looking through this section. It is a different structure than I would have expected, but I think that it helps with this specific article and subject matter. Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• "In addition to creating her own illustrations" I think you can ditch this clause as unnecessary. The reader will understand, given the placement in the article, that this is in addition to her main work

• That does make sense. I admittedly overdid it with trying to force transitional phrases like this into the prose to try and make the prose more engaging and to run more smoothly together. I agree that spots like this read more as filler and are actually more distracting than just getting right to the point. Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Beyond her museum and publishing work," same rationale. You could maybe throw in an "also" if you really feel you need to, but I don't think you do

• Revised. I agree that "also" would not be needed here. I have a tendency to overuse "also", and I have seen a few FAC reviewers point out how that can either be unnecessary filler or some type of crutch. Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Over the course of her career," also more on the unnecessary side, I think - the reader will understand this from the range of dates (although I won't die on the hill of it if you want to keep this one)

• @Premeditated Chaos: Thank you again for your review. I really do appreciate all of the time and energy that you have put into this. I honestly feel like I have learned a lot by coming back to this article. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if I have missed anything or if there is anything else that would need improvements and revisions. I hope that you are having a wonderful start to your July! Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Cheers Aoba, I'm happy to support this nomination. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Source review (pass)

Great to see this at FAC! Just as a disclaimer, I copyedited this article earlier for GOCE, which involved making some minor wording and organizational changes to improve the prose. In the interests of neutrality, I'll be doing a source review here. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 21:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Aoba47 Source spotcheck looks good, with citations consistently verifying claims. As a whole, referenced publications are high-quality, and quotes and primary sources (interviews) are used appropriately. My only comment is that for The NMNH featured her work again in 2010 as part of a collaborative exhibition with the Guild of Natural Science Illustrators[1], should the last part instead be American Society of Botanical Artists? Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 22:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• @Crestfalling: Thank you for the source review. I am glad that it is being done earlier on in the process for this FAC. Again, I just wanted to say that I greatly appreciate all of your help with the article. Thank you for pointing out the error. I have corrected it in the prose. Apologies for that as it is a very silly (and glaring) issue. Please let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article further. I hope that you are having a wonderful start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • No problem, it was a small thing and I'm confident in passing the source review now. I'm glad I was able to help, and will let you know if I find any suggestions for improvement, though everything looks good at this time. Best of luck on the rest of the nomination; I'm having a great start to my week, and wish you one as well :) Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 03:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
    • Thank you! I am glad that you are having a good start to your week. I am just trying my best lol. Aoba47 (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

RandomEdits

I'm not familiar with Tangerini's works, but a quick google reveals some nice looking art of hers. I had a read through the article before, here are my thoughts.

Lede

• As of 2024, Tangerini remains the first and only botanical illustrator employed by the NMNH. Usually with these sort of statements the natural question is: Is the "As of" qualifier needed? I would argue not; the source in Career this comes from is reliable and explicitly states she is the only illustrator in over 50 years, and there is no newer source that contradicts this.

• I can see your point about this. I do not imagine that this information will change anytime in the immediate future, but I think that having the date provides some nice context for readers, so I am more apt to keep it if possible. That being said, I would be more than happy to remove this if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• I'm surprised Navia aliciae isn't mentioned in some way in the lede, considering she was the one to inadvertently discover it.

• Thank you for bringing this up. That is a good point. I am currently in the process of reworking the lead per comments that Premeditated Chaos has left above. I will keep this in mind when revising the lead, and I will let you know when I have finished this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• @RandomEditsForWhenIRemember: Apologies for pinging you again, but I just wanted to let you know that I have revised the lead, and it now includes information about Navia aliciae. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good, I should be in a position to review again tomorrow :) RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Early life

• she initially relied on them to point out even a plant's Remove the 'even', sounds a bit un-ecylcopedic

• Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• McNeill wrote that Tangerini entered scientific illustration through "a bit of luck (and a lot of skill)", with her early career being closer to an apprenticeship than the "formal college route" that would later become more common.[4] For the end I would just write closer to an apprenticeship than a formal college education. The quote isn't exciting enough to be needed.

• I respectfully disagree, as I find the quote to be useful. I actually have a different take on the quote and the source. I do not think that "a formal college education" is a one-to-one substitution for this, as I interpret the quote as more so meaning that Tangerini did not leverage a college degree into a job in a more direct and conventional career path. Aoba47 (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• In the final paragraph you use ref 3 two times in a row. Likewise ref 6's first use can be removed since you call it at the end of the sentence anyway.

• Again, I would respectfully disagree about this. The first sentence using Citation 3 also uses Citation 11, so I would rather be clearer to readers on which citations is being used to support which information. And I would rather keep the first usage of Citation 6 in that sentence to more clearly define where readers can find where this information is supported. Aoba47 (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Artistic style

• The first pargraph needs more tightening I think, it's mostly just a long checklist at the moment.

• Could you please give more concrete examples for this? Aoba47 (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Tangerini observed that her perspective as an illustrator often leads her to notice details that botanists overlook. This would be better suited in front of the paragraph she discovers Navia alicae, as it's a direct example of what she means.

• That is fair. I have moved it per your suggestion. I was also thinking about doing this, so this gave me the push to make that change. Thank you for this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Likewise, the last paragraph isn't really about her style at this point, and would be better suited to the Career section.

• I respectfully disagree about this. I had tried to keep the Career section centered on information with clearly defined dates and such, and I think that this paragraph is about her artistic process, as it is about the end point for her illustrations, in terms of publication and audience. And, I think that Tangerini's descriptions of her audience and her intentions and goals for her illustrations is better suited for this section. Aoba47 (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Career

• On one of her five trips to Hawaii during the 1990s and 2000s, El Niño storms forced her to sketch a Zingiberales specimen in heavy rain while assisting botanist W. John Kress. I would reword this as this implies the storm itself was making her sketch the flowers. I'm also not seeing in ref 6 that she took five trips to Hawaii, only two. Is this from ref 3? I would go with something like During one of her trips to Hawaii in the 1990s, Tangerini drew the Zingiberales species for botanist W. John Kress, sketching outdoors in heavy rain during an El Niño season.

• The five trip number is from Citation 3. I have used a variation of your suggestion though, so this should eliminate any concerns about this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• As of 2024, Tangerini remains the first and only botanical illustrator employed by the NMNH. Ideally, this could be phrased differently, as it's a directly copy of the lede's sentence (or vice versa).

• I do not think that this should be too big of an issue. I have not run across the note in previous FACs, and I think that this is the better and more natural way of presenting this information, so I would prefer to keep it if possible. Aoba47 (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Awards

• and among the greatest American artists. where does ref 53 say this?

• This is supported from the following sentence from Citation 53: There, she met Alice Tangerini and the late Regina Olsen Hughes, two of America's greatest artists. Aoba47 (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair, I'd completely misread that line RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I have done that plenty of times myself, and it is always good to double-check these things anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Misc

• Article is about the size I'd expect it to be.
• I added a use mdy template since you'd kept the date formats nice and consistent; after discovering it recently I'd recommend this handy script which takes care of these.

• Thank you for adding the script. I do not use scripts to be honest, although I can understand how other editors would find them useful. Aoba47 (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• In general, you use "That" quite a lot ("McNeill wrote that Tangerini", " Wagner suggested that she wear an eye patch" etc). I think most of these could be removed to make the text less passive.

• I respectfully disagree about this point. I do not think that "that" makes the prose passive. Aoba47 (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

That's all the first go through. Looking good so far! let me know when you've had a look and I'll go through again.

Additionally, if you have time for a FA review yourself when you're not working on this, I have a Featured Article Candidate about a horse up at the moment that could do with one more prose reviewer, but this isn't required as part of this review by any means! :) RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@RandomEditsForWhenIRemember: Thank you for your review so far. I am still in the process of reworking and revising the lead, and I will update you as soon as that has been done. I have addressed your other points. I have respectfully pushed back against a few of them, but again, I do appreciate your time and your help with this FAC. Unfortunately, I am currently on a break from Wikipedia, as I am just focusing on this FAC for the immediate future, but best of luck with your FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Aoba47 Had a chance to go through it all again now; after the changes above and after MSincccc's review this is looking good to me now, happy to support. Best of luck with your other reviews on this page :) RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and for your support. I appreciate all of your help and all of the help that I have received for this article in general. I hope that you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Comments to follow. MSincccc (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Early life and education

• "mimeograph pictures" → "mimeographed pictures"
• "scientists frequently assisted her with basic identification" → "scientists often assisted her with basic identification"
• "Over the next three years, Tangerini developed the expertise to work more independently" → "Over the next three years, she developed the expertise to work more independently"
• "conducting plant dissections and producing her own enlarged illustrations herself" → "conducting plant dissections and producing enlarged illustrations"
• "formal college route" that would later become more common → "formal college route", which would later become more common
• "as a full-time staff illustrator in the botany department under the American botanist" → "as a full-time staff illustrator in the botany department under botanist"

MSincccc (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc: Thank you for your comment so far. I believe that I have address everything, but please let me know if I have missed anything. I hope that you are having a wonderful start to your July. Aoba47 (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Artistic style and process

• Could we move this section below Career?

• This structure was recommended during the article's [review]. The rationale is the reader would get a better understanding of Tangerini's career and her recognition and impact by first reading about how she works. The idea was to have the article organized like the following: "process → achievement → recognition". I had struggled with how to best organize and structure this article, and there were concerns about the prose not being engaging and being choppy (both in the peer review and the first FAC), so I had implemented this suggestion to try and addressed those points. Aoba47 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Her illustrations fill as much as the page" → "Her illustrations fill as much of the page"
• Could we link to quill and botanical gardens?

Awards and recognition

• "She was given the Distinguished Service Award from the Guild of Natural Science Illustrators in 1999" → "She received the Distinguished Service Award from the Guild of Natural Science Illustrators in 1999"

• I am uncertain about this suggestion, as this section already uses "received" several times, so I think that another instance would make the prose too repetitive. That being said, I am open to using different wording or a different verb rather than "given". Aoba47 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• "the Excellence in Scientific Botanical Art award from the American Society of Botanical Artists in 2008" → "the Excellence in Scientific Botanical Art Award from the American Society of Botanical Artists in 2008"
• "After fifty years at the NMNH" → "After 50 years at NMNH"

Lead

• "but has stated that she will continue illustrating for as long as her eyesight allows." → "but has stated she will continue illustrating for as long as her eyesight allows."
• Along with curatorial work, she has also taught classes and workshops on botanical illustration since 1976.
  • Do we need "also" here?

Bottom line

• Aoba47 That's all for the prose. An interesting article about a subject I've not previously read about.

As for my July, it has been fine so far; still awaiting the month's first comments at my FAC though. Best, MSincccc (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc: Thank you for taking the time to leave a review. I greatly appreciate that. I enjoyed learning about botanical illustration through this article, as I had never really heard about it or thought it all that much before. I have addressed a majority of your comments. I left two replies above, one to explain the rationale for the article's current structure and another to explain my concern about a suggestion for "Awards and recongition". Let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. I am glad that you are having a good July so far, and best of luck with your current FAC! That is an interesting topic, and I am glad that the FAC has received a good amount of attention. Aoba47 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses, @Aoba47. I hope you have a great month ahead. I will support the nomination. MSincccc (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and for the kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Support from Z1720

I made some edits to the article; feel free to revert if not helpful. No further concerns after reading through the article prose. Z1720 (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. I appreciate your edits, and I think that they are all helpful and are improvements to the prose. I hope that you are doing well and that you are having a wonderful start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

NØ

• "She sustained an injury in 2005 that left her with double vision in her right eye after surgery, but has stated she will continue illustrating for as long as her eyesight allows." - I think after the comma, "she" should be repeated. And do you think past tense might work better? "She sustained an injury in 2005 that left her with double vision in her right eye after surgery, but she stated that she would continue illustrating for as long as her eyesight allows."

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "she also incorporates more modern techniques like digital painting" - could be more concise unless you think this would be detrimental to readers' understanding

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "In a retrospective profile, Smithsonian magazine's ..." - would the year of publishing in the prose be useful for the retrospective?

• Added the year. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Tangerini is interested in preserving historical drawing techniques and has a collection of instruments used by other illustrators, which she described as "a little history of drawing that is slowly vanishing." - You could say "which she has described" for a smoother tense flow

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Her illustrations fill as much of as the page as possible because of her dislike of empty space." - Apologies for being nitpicky but the Horror vacui link is coming across a bit easter-eggy with the current framing to me. The linked article seems to be about an art phenomenon rather than dislike itself, so is there a better way to convey this?

• That is understandable. I decided to just remove the link, as I do not think that it is necessary, as I believe the wording is more clear and direct without it, but let me know what you think. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "In 2018, Tangerini's illustrations were included in exhibitions at the Washington National Cathedral, the United States Botanic Garden, and the Royal Botanic Garden, Sydney. In 2022, the Smithsonian Gardens highlighted her in an online exhibition on orchids and women botanists, conservationists, and illustrators." - I would vary the sentence structure to avoid two consecutive sentences starting with "In [year]", perhaps by pulling the year at the mid or end of the sentence

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "she has also traveled to observe flora in their natural environments, including destinations such as California, Hawaii, and Guyana." - maybe "she has also traveled to observe flora in their natural environments at destinations like California, Hawaii, and Guyana." to cut down the first three commas in this sentence to two

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "On one of her trips to Hawaii in the 1990s, Tangerini drew the Zingiberales species for botanist W. John Kress, sketching outdoors in heavy rain during El Niño." - Optionally, this could do without the "in the 1990s" bit. I just don't think it's very specific and the decade is implied by other events in the paragraph imo

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• " In 1984, botanists Lyman Bradford Smith and Harold E. Robinson asked Tangerini to illustrate a bromeliad specimen for the scientific journal Acta Botanica Venezuelica; after noticing inconsistencies between the specimen and Smith's written description, she conducted further research and determined that it was a new species. Smith and Robinson named the plant Navia aliciae in recognition of her discovery." - Could just be split instead of the semicolon due to the length

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Reflecting on the experience, she remarked, "They don't have a diagnosis for it, they just say it's bad luck. You just worked so many years and one eye gave out." - If the reflection came really soon after the event, you could remove "reflecting on the experience"; I would recommend including the year if the reflection came much later, though. You could also reuse the source at the end of the sentence since there's a direct quote

• Added year and source. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Although she underwent surgery later that year, it left her with double vision in the affected eye, forcing her to rely on her left one." - Isn't the last part kind of obvious? If you would like to keep it, it might work better as the beginning of the following sentence: "She continued illustrating by relying on her left eye, for which Wagner suggested that she wear an eye patch and even offered his son's pirate patch in support."

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "As of 2024, Tangerini remains the first and only botanical illustrator employed by the NMNH." - Present tense doesn't work with "as of 2024". I would look for a newer source or change it to past tense

• Unfortunately, I could not find a newer source for this information, so I have changed to the past tense. I think that this information is still true, but I understand what you mean and I agree with your suggestion. Let me know if this would need some further work. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• I would introduce Mary Emily Eaton as it is not obvious what she does

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• "pen and ink" seems to be non-hyphenated in the Artistic style and process section but hyphenated in the Other professional activities section

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• It is possible to avoid starting two paragraphs with "Tangerini" in the Awards and recognition section by merging the first two sentences of the second paragraph: "Recognized for her role and influence within her field, Tangerini has been described as one of the best botanical illustrators ..."

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Mostly just a wording and grammar-focused review due to this being so far out of my wheelhouse. You have done fantastic work with this article and this should be it for my comments after finishing the whole thing.--NØ 06:22, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: Thank you for your help and for your kind words! Ii really do appreciate it. I believe that I have addressed everything. I did push back against one point, but I can address further if necessary. Please let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. I hope that you are having a wonderful weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

You are most welcome, Aoba. Always a pleasure to read your work. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Hope your weekend is going great as well.--NØ 15:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Comment by Howardcorn33

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

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

Comments from Metalicat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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