Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

UC

I will definitely come back here for a proper review -- just one quick one for now.:

• Scholars from the 19th century proposed various derivations, which were dismissed in the early 20th century by Alfred Chilton Pearson, who suggested that the name may be related to amalós (ἀμαλός, 'soft, tender, weak') and amálē (ἀμάλη, 'sheaf, bundle').: I was pleased to see Pearson here, as I did a bit of work on his biography -- but are we perhaps investing him with too much authority? He was a Greek tragedy man, really, not a philologist -- does he really get to "dismiss" all of these earlier suggestions so completely that we don't even mention them? I notice that we later mention Gruppe's, but it takes a bit of thinking to realise that this is one of the hypotheses Pearson was talking about initially. I suppose what I'm missing here is a sense of whether anyone nowadays thinks these earlier suggestions were completely wrong, and indeed what they make of Pearson's.
  • The honest answer is "probably" (though we aren't all that spoilt for choice here). I've reworked this paragraph a little: we now mention a few 19th-century etymologies, and we put a bit less faith in Pearson. The other option is that we just delete a few sentences. Let me know what you think. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  I like the way it's framed in the new version -- it does a good job of setting out the different hypotheses and the movement over time as to which are taken seriously. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:19, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Gerard Mussies has derived Amalthea's name from amalthḗs (ἀμαλθής, 'not softening'), which he sees as referring to the goat's udder, taut with milk: I'd put this at the end, and put a date on it: at the moment we go from late C19th -> 1917 (why not give that date specifically?) -> 1999 -> 1917.
  • I was split between the current order and the one you're suggesting, so I'm happy with that. Done. Specified dates for both. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• which some scholars interpret as "Goat's Mountain", and thus as a reference to the story of Amalthea -- because of the ἀμαλθής connection? Or because she's meant to have used a goat to rear him?
  • Amalthea was herself often the goat. We did mention this in the second sentence of the lead (in some accounts from the Hellenistic period (c. 323–30 BC) onwards, as the goat itself), but I'm happy to add something like "who was sometimes described as a goat" after thus as a reference to the story of Amalthea, if you think it helps. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  I think that would be useful. We can always find some phrasing that doesn't imply that this is new information. EDIT: on reflection, if the "Amaltheia = goat" thing only dates to the Hellenistic period, then this is potentially very shaky, but that's not your problem as long as we're faithfully reporting the scholars' views (do those scholars think the connection is older?) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:13, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much for stopping by, UC. I've had a go at these few, and will look forward to further comments. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• The "horn of Amalthea" is mentioned as early as the archaic period (c. 800–480 BC) by poets such as Anacreon and Phocylides: the date range here is a bit misleading, if these are the only two: Anacreon, probably the older, was born in the 570s.

MSincccc

• Comments to follow. MSincccc (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• As a starting comment, I would suggest adding the relevant language template to the mainspace ("Use American/British English or similar"). It certainly helps. MSincccc (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Lead

• "or, in some accounts from the Hellenistic period (c. 323–30 BC) onwards, as the goat itself" → "or, in some Hellenistic-period accounts, as the goat itself"
• In modern art, she has been the subject of 17th- and 18th-century works by sculptors such as Gian Lorenzo Bernini and Pierre Julien and painters such as Jacob Jordaens.
  • How about inserting a comma before "and painters"?

MSincccc (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Mythology (Horn of Amalthea)

• "generally described as able to produce" → "generally described as being able to produce"
  • More idiomatic?
• the tale of this horn seems to have originated as an independent tradition to that of Zeus's raising
  • How about "from that of Zeus's raising" or "independent of that of Zeus's raising"? I leave it to you.

A few more suggestions. More to follow. MSincccc (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Relief_Amaltheia_Adrasteia_Zeus.jpg: CC BY-SA release is acceptable, but the file should not have the PD-Art tag as this is a photo of a 3D relief, not a 2D artwork
• File:Gold oktadrachm of Ptolemy IV Philopator MET DP139890.jpg: CC0 release is acceptable, but again this is not a 2D artwork so PD-Art tag is irrelevant
• File:Base with reliefs of the birth of Zeus (Rome Mus Cap 1944) 04 crop.jpg: OK
• File:Gianlorenzo bernini, la capra amaltea, ante 1615 (galleria borghese).jpg: OK
• File:The Childhood of Zeus (Louvre) by Jakob Jordaens.jpg: OK
• File:Jupiter als kind gevoed met melk van de geit Amalthea, RP-P-BI-2610.jpg: needs dating in caption
• File:Nicolas Poussin - Jupiter enfant nourri par la chèvre Amalthée.jpg: OK
• File:Amalthea Julien Louvre CC230.jpg: OK

―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:29, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Metalicat

Dropping in with some drive-by comments, mainly on prose and MOS.

Lead

• The lead doesn't mention the etymology discussion, which has its own section. A sentence on the name's uncertain origin would round it out per WP:LEAD.

Prose

• Zeus's mother Rhea gives him as a newborn child to Themis, who hands him over to the nymph Amalthea, who has the infant reared by a she-goat: three chained "who" clauses. Consider breaking this up.
• the tale of this horn seems to have originated as an independent tradition to that of Zeus's raising: "independent tradition to" reads oddly; independent tradition from or a tradition independent of would be more natural.

MOS

• Hyphenation of century-dates is inconsistent: "3rd-century BC poet" (hyphenated as a compound adjective, correct) appears alongside "the 3rd century BC" (unhyphenated as a noun phrase, also correct), but there are a few places where hyphens are missing in the adjectival form. A quick pass would catch these.

Otherwise this appears to be a very clean, well-sourced article. Metalicat (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Choliamb

I enjoyed this article and learned a lot from it. It covers the ground thoroughly and the expected secondary sources (Gantz, Fowler, etc.) are cited, but what I particularly admire is the meticulous citation of the ancient sources that lie behind these modern syntheses. These citations make the article much more useful as a reference tool for readers who already know something about the subject, without in any way reducing its value for more general readers who never look at the notes and just want to know the stories. Secondary sources are consistently provided, in keeping with Wikipedia policy, but the notes also point interested readers directly to the ancient sources on which those secondary sources depend, rather than forcing them to waste time searching through a secondary source looking for a citation of the specific ancient passage in question. This is especially useful in a mythological article where many of the ancient sources are obscure and unfamiliar: scholia on Aratus and Callimachus and Hellenistic catalogues of catasterisms are more difficult to track down, even for specialists, than passages in Herodotus and Livy, and the citations provided here will save readers (as they saved me) a lot of time and unnecessary clicking and scrolling. I wish more of Wikipedia's articles on classical mythology, and on classical topics in general, would adopt the same approach.

I'm sure there will be plenty of advice about style from the regulars here, so my comments are restricted to a few matters of content that caught my eye. Most of them are trivial, but a couple (on the Amaltheum of Cicero's friend Atticus and the so-called Amaltheia relief in the Vatican in particular) are more substantial.

• The "horn of Amalthea" is mentioned as early as the archaic period (c. 800–480 BC) by poets such as Anacreon and Phocylides. Anacreon and Phocylides both date to the 6th century, so why not just say that, rather than placing them within a span of three centuries? The preceding paragraph already makes it clear that Amaltheia doesn't appear in Hesiod, which is the natural place to look for her. Does she appear in any other sources of the 8th or 7th century? If so, they deserve a mention; if not, then what this sentence means is "the horn of Amaltheia is mentioned as early as the 6th century".

• commonly referenced in comedies, such as those by Cratinus, Aristophanes, and Antiphanes (who date to the 6th to 4th centuries BC). Similarly, better to describe these as writers of the 5th and 4th centuries. It's possible that Cratinus, the oldest of them, was born near the end of the 6th century, but all of his dated plays belong to 5th century. As far as we know, there is no such thing as a 6th-century Greek comedy.

• an element also mentioned by the 4th-to-3rd-century BC poet Philemon I know that "poet" here means "comic poet" and "comic poet" means "playwright", but I suspect that most Wikipedia readers, when they see the word "poet" without any qualification, will probably not assume that Philemon was a writer of comedies for the stage. Perhaps "comic poet" or "comic playwright" instead?

• The 1st-century BC Roman writer Cicero, in a letter to his friend Atticus, mentions an amaltheum, most likely a shrine dedicated to Amalthea. On Atticus's estate there was such a shrine, which included illustrations of Amalthea's mythology. Cicero, seeking to erect a similar structure in Arpinum .... The source cited here is Petersson's biography of Cicero, and what he says is accurately reported, but the idea that Atticus's Amaltheum contained painted illustrations of Amalthea's mythology is fantasy -- not Petersson's fantasy, but the fantasy of Otto Schmidt, whose account in Ciceros Villen (Leipzig 1899), pp. 15ff., Petersson has followed in every detail and repeated as if it were established fact rather than speculation. We know absolutely nothing about the form of the Amaltheum, and there has been much speculation about the kind of place the word refers to: suggestions include a garden, a building, a garden with one or more subsidiary buildings or pavilions, an artificial grotto, a wing of the estate, or even a nickname for the entire estate. Writing "erect a structure", as the article currently does, begs the question, and uses words that Cicero never uses. Cicero's letter (Att. 1.16) is in fact very little help: he simply asks Atticus to tell him what his Amaltheum is like, and in particular how it is decorated and how it is laid out (velim ad me scribas, cuiusmodi sit Ἀμαλθεῖον tuum, quo ornatu, qua τοποθεσίᾳ). The word used for decoration here (ornatus) covers any kind of furnishing, ornament, or decoration, not specifically paintings, much less paintings depicting the mythology of Amaltheia. As far as the contents of the Amaltheum go, we know only two things: a passage in Cicero's De legibus (2.7) implies that it had plane trees in it (or perhaps around it); and another sentence in the same letter of Cicero states that it contained inscriptions or verses (epigrammata) honoring Cicero himself. This has often been combined with a passage in the life of Atticus by Cornelius Nepos (18.5–6), where he says that Atticus had a collection of portraits of notable Romans and that "under the portraits he described the accomplishments and the offices held by each man in not more than four or five verses". Taken together, these passages have persuaded many scholars that the Amaltheum contained a series of portraits of distinguished Romans accompanied by inscribed elogia, of the sort known from other Roman portrait galleries. That is the limit of our knowledge; the rest is speculation. For a summary of the 19th-century literature on these questions, see F. G. Moore, "Cicero's Amaltheum", Classical Philology 1 (1906), pp. 121–126; and for more recent discussion and bibliography, see G. Sauron, "Un "Amaltheum" dans la villa d'Oplontis/Torre Annunziata?", Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 18 (2007), pp. 41–46, as well as Sauron's earlier article, "De Buthrote à Sperlonga: A propos d'une étude récente sur le thème de la grotte dans les décors romains", Revue Archéologique 1991, pp. 3-42, which contains a section subtitled "L'Amaltheum d'Atticus à Buthrote" beginning on p. 5. (Henri Lavagne's account of the Amaltheum in Operosa Antra, which is cited in this WP article in connection with Marie Antoinette's grotto at Rambouillet, must be used with great caution; it contains much that is imaginary and the discussion is distorted by his insistence that the Amaltheum on Atticus's estate must have been an artificial grotto of some sort. For the weaknesses in his argument, see Sauron 2007, pp. 7–8.) How much of any of this belongs in the Wikipedia article is open to question; perhaps none at all, since it tells us more about Cicero and Atticus than about Amaltheia. And because Cicero says nothing about the myths (except to ask Atticus to send him whatever poems and stories he has), this short paragraph on the Amaltheum sits rather uncomfortably in a section that is otherwise devoted to the later mythographic tradition. If you keep it, perhaps it would be more appropriately given a separate section, grouped together with other sources in which the name of Amaltheia is used metaphorically to denote gardens and other places of exceptional fertility and abundance (see the next comment).

• Diodorus Siculus, in a euhemerist reworking of Amalthea's myth, describes her as an especially beautiful young woman, who is wed to Ammon, the king of Libya. Ammon gives her a region of great fertility which is shaped like a bull's horn, and which, taking its name from her, comes to be known as Amalthea's horn. Diodorus goes on to say that, for this reason, later generations call any place of remarkable fertility and fruitfulness "Amalthea's Horn". I think this is worth mentioning, because there is other evidence for the metaphorical use of "Amaltheia's Horn" to describe a particularly a rich garden or other tract of land, without any direct reference to the myths. See Athenaeus 12.542a, which states, on the authority of the Hellenistic tyrant and historian Douris of Samos, that among the properties owned by Gelon, the tyrant of Akragas, was a spot in Calabria set in a beautiful, well-watered grove and known as Amaltheia's Horn. (Secondary sources for this include Lavagne, p. 262, and Sauron 2007, p. 7, cited above.) I think this is where Atticus's Amaltheion probably belongs too, as another example of the use of Amaltheia's name to evoke qualities of fertility and abundance, in this case the beauty of some particular part of Atticus's estate in Epirus. Lavagne (pp. 261–262) sets it in this context, and some of his comments remain valid, as long as you disregard his assumption that the Amaltheum must be a grotto. This metaphorical sense is also what lies behind the use of the word amaltheum by Neo-Latin writers of the early modern period, who use it as a generic title for a copious anthology of information, especially lexica of various kinds: e.g., the Amaltheum Castello-Brunianum (a medical lexicon); the Amaltheum Prosodicum (a dictionary of Latin vowel quantities for poets who need to distinguish their long syllables from their shorts); the Amaltheum Botanicum (a lexicon of plant names); and the Amalthea Onomastica (a grandiose universal lexicon). By this time, obviously, the metaphor is completely dead, and there is no conscious allusion to the nymph or the goat; only the notion of richness and abundance remains. Whether you choose to include any of this in the article is up to you, but if you do, perhaps the metaphorical uses in Diodorus and Athenaeus could be grouped together with Atticus's Amaltheum in some way, so that they don't get lost in the discussion of mythographic minutiae that occupies the rest of the "Later versions" section.

• Amalthea was the subject of a sculpture by the Baroque sculptor Gian Lorenzo Bernini. Instead of "by", perhaps "attributed to"? As I understand it, the attribution, although universally accepted, is a modern conjecture based largely on stylistic considerations and unsupported by any documentary evidence. Please correct me if I'm wrong; this is far outside my field.

• A few of comments on the list of references:

1. Frazer's commentary on the Fasti was published in 1929 by Macmillan in London: see here. The Cambridge digital "edition" is just a scan of the original. They have a lot of nerve charging fifty bucks per volume for PDFs of a work in the public domain in both the UK and the US! Better to cite (and link) the free and entirely legal online versions at HathiTrust or the Internet Archive, rather than the paywalled version at CUP.
2. The title of Marshall's Teubner edition of the Fabulae is simply "Hyginus, Fabulae". That's what is printed on the title page. The bracketed addition <mythographus> after Hyginus's name, which you presumably found in some online catalogue, is a gloss added by the Deutsche Bibliothek for disambiguation and cataloguing purposes. Also worth noting that the 2002 edition is the second edition.
3. Petersson's biography of Cicero was published in 1920 by the University of California Press; see, e.g., here. The Biblo and Tannen version is a photographic reprint.
4. D. R. Shackleton Bailey (cited here as the editor of the Loeb edition of Cicero's letters) is normally referred to as Shackleton Bailey, not Bailey, and alphabetized under S.

The so-called Amaltheia relief

I have left for last the problem of the lead image. The TLDR version is this: The so-called "Amaltheia relief" in the Vatican (inv. 9510) is described in both the image caption and the text of the article as a depiction of Amaltheia feeding the infant Zeus, but this identification is incorrect. The scholarly consensus for the last century and a half is that the relief has nothing to do with Zeus and Amaltheia, but instead depicts a maenad feeding an infant satyr. The iconographic evidence for that interpretation is incontrovertible. The long version follows, and I apologize in advance for the length.

The relief in the Vatican was part of the Giustiniani collection in Rome from the 16th century onward, and already by that time it seems to have been identified as Zeus and Amaltheia. This interpretation was elaborated at great length by Karl Böttiger in the first 50 pages of Amalthea, oder Museum der Kunstmythologie und bildlichen Alterthumskunde (Leipzig 1820), vol. I, pp. 1-54, an influential work which you may have encountered during your research for the article. For this reason, the name "Amaltheia relief" became permanently attached to it, and has remained attached to it today, even though it is known to be inaccurate.

The problem with the traditional identification is that the infant drinking from the horn in the relief has pointed ears, similar to the ears on the figure of the young satyr or Pan at the entrance to the cave on the right side of the relief. This is clearly visible in the Commons photo used in the article, as well as in Theodor Schreiber's Die hellenistischen Reliefbilder (Leipzig 1894), plate 21, and in the detail photo in H. Herdejürgen, "Östliche Bildhauerwerkstätten im frühkaiserzeitlichen Rom: Bemerkungen zu den Spadareliefs", Antike Kunst 44 (2001), pl. 18.4. It is even clearer when standing before the relief itself, as reported by scholars who have studied it in person. This fact, overlooked or ignored in the 18th century, was well known by the mid-19th century; see the discussion in O. Benndorf and R. Schöne, Die antiken Bildwerke des lateranensischen Museums (Leipzig 1867), pp. 16–18, no. 24, which gives a brief summary of the debate up to that time. Since no Greek or Roman sculptor would have depicted Zeus with pointed ears, a feature which in classical art invariably signifies a bestial nature, the few 19th-century scholars who clung to that interpretation were forced to argue that the ears had been reworked, or that the entire head was a modern restoration. But this was a desperate and untenable defense: the restored parts of the relief are well documented (see the detailed list of restorations in Benndorf and Schöne, and the drawing in Die hellenistischen Reliefbilder, facing plate 21, in which the restored bits are shaded). Although there is a long diagonal break that runs up through the neck of the infant, clearly visible in the Commons photograph, the head itself is of one piece with the ancient background and is certainly ancient. This is stated unequivocally by W. Helbig, "Zum Amalthea-Relief", Archäologische Zeitung 21 (1863), col. 45. There is no indication the the ears have been reworked, and indeed, why would anyone have done so, given that it contradicts the interpretation of the relief that had been favored ever since its discovery?

Helbig in 1863 saw the obvious conclusion: "Wir haben also ein Genrebild aus dem dionysischen Kreise vor Augen: einen Satyrknaben, der von einer Bakchantin getränkt wird", a Dionysian genre scene in which an ivy-crowned maenad offers a drink to a baby satyr. For those who wonder whether an infant satyr would be depicted with human feet, as the child is here, further proof comes from a small fragment of another Roman relief, also in the Vatican (Museo Pio-Clementino, inv. 567), which preserves the figure of an infant satyr drinking out of a cup. For a photo of that figure, see H. Herdejürgen (cited above), pl. 18.3. Except for the replacement of the horn with a cup, the child in that fragment is a mirror image of the child in the so-called Amaltheia relief: he is in the same position, with one leg outstretched and the other folded beneath it, arms upraised and bent at the elbow to hold the vessel to his mouth, and pointed ears but human feet. In this fragment, however, the identification of the child as a satyr is established beyond doubt by the presence of a tiny satyr's tail emerging from the small of his back. The two reliefs are clearly related, and the usual assumption is that they both look back to a common model: this was first proposed by Helbig in 1863 and is still the prevailing view today; Herdejürgen, for example, writes on p. 26, note 23, "Die typologische Übereinstimmung der beiden ausschreitenden Figuren dürfte vorbildbedingt sein".

The evidence was reexamined by H. von Steuben in the fourth edition of Helbig's Führer durch die öffentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom, ed. H. Speier (Tübingen 1963–1972), vol. I, no. 1012; he emphasized the child's Satyrohren and the other Dionysian aspects of the relief and firmly rejected the old interpretation: "die Szene wurde einst also zu Unrecht aus der Zeuskind, das von Amalthea genährt wird, ... gedeutet". Since that time most scholars have seen no need to relitigate the case. In contemporary art historical scholarship the relief is generally referred to as the "so-called" or "sogennante" Amaltheia relief, or the word "Amaltheia" is enclosed in scare-quotes, to indicate that the traditional name is no longer considered accurate. The identification of the infant as a satyr is taken for granted, as a fact that requires no further argument (see, e.g., Herdejürgen's passing mention on p. 26 of the "Satyrkind auf dem sogenannten Amaltheiarelief"). The most recent detailed discussion of the relief that I am aware of is in Stephan Lehmann, Mythologische Prachtreliefs (Bamberg 1996), pp. 139–145; it's not available online and I don't have immediate access to it, but it's clear from the citation in Herdejürgen (p. 26, note 21) that he too considers the infant a satyr and rejects the identification as Zeus and Amaltheia (witness the scare-quotes around the name "Amaltheia" in his table of contents, available here). Herdejürgen's note also implies that the same view is held by Friederike Sinn in her discussion of the relief in a forthcoming volume of the catalogue of sculptures in the Museo Gregorio Profano in the Vatican. (It's possible that the relief is also discussed in a new book by Mariella Cipriano, Rilievi mitologici di lusso, which was published in 2023. This I have not seen.)

There are evidently a few outliers who still cling to the old identification, and you have managed to find a couple. Miller's views on Augustan poetry may deserve respect, but he, unlike the scholars mentioned in the previous paragraph, is no authority on ancient art in general or Roman sculpture in particular, and his treatment of the iconographical evidence in the article cited here is, to put it gently, naive. Why Martin Henig, who ought to know better, included the relief as a depiction of Amaltheia in his article in LIMC is a more difficult question, and one I cannot answer. (He conveniently does not mention the ears, which relieves him of the necessity to explain them.) But a few stubborn deniers can't change the scholarly consensus that has developed over the last century and a half. In debates about ancient art it is rarely possible to prove that one view is right while another is wrong, but this is one of the few cases in which the evidence allows for certainty. The syllogism is very simple: (1) The infant in the relief has the pointed ears of a satyr or other beast (this is not in dispute); (2) it is inconceivable that any Greek or Roman sculptor would have depicted the infant Zeus with such ears; therefore, (3) the infant in the relief is not Zeus (and the woman not Amaltheia). I don't see any way around this reasoning, which is presumably why Henig ignores it.

What to do? The image of the Vatican relief, lovely as it is, must go. Can it be replaced with another image of Amalthea in human (rather than goat) form? There is at least one good candidate: the terracotta relief in Copenhagen (Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek T 138) (= no. 2 in the LIMC article). On this relief see Hermann von Rohden, Die antiken Terrakotten IV: Architektonische römische Tonreliefs der Kaiserzeit (Berlin 1911), pp. 8–9, 245, and plate 10. Here the figures of the Kouretes clashing their shields, which frame the image of the child and nurse, put the identification beyond dispute. There is no modern photo of this in the Commons, but the illustration in Rohden is now PD and I have uploaded it as File:Campana relief of Amaltheia nursing Zeus (Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek T 138).jpg. The resolution and quality are not great, but perhaps they are good enough for Wikipedia purposes? I leave it to you to decide whether you want to include it in the article, either as the lead image or somewhere else. If not, the other choices for the lead image are an ancient depiction of Amaltheia as a goat instead of a woman (like the base in the Capitoline Museum, is already in the article), or a modern painting or sculpture, like the ones discussed in the section on modern art. In articles on ancient topics, my personal preference is for an ancient image if one is available, but there are certainly editors who feel differently. In the end, any solution is fine with me, as long as the satyr relief is removed.

Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Comments by Bgsu98 (3/14/26)

Lead

• "The Elementary Education Act 1870 was intended to provide sufficient elementary schools for all children. Schooling was made compulsory up to the age of ten in 1880 and free at the elementary level in 1891. The minimum school leaving-age was increased to 12 in the 1890s and to 14 by the Education Act 1918." -- a few stylistic recommendations.

• I've done the third of these. I think the first two sound more natural as they are now. Llewee (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• "By the end of the period, a third of adolescents entered secondary school." --> Recommend using the past tense and not the past progressive.

• I think this might give the impression that it's referring to a third of everyone who had been adolescent during the period, rather than a third of those who were adolescents at that point. Llewee (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Secondary schools taught an academic curriculum which reflected parents' aspirations for their children." --> Missing apostrophe on "parents".

• done Llewee (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Welsh education in the early- to mid-19th century

• Isn't "percent" one word? Regardless, I would recommend simply writing 58%, 26%, etc.

• "Per cent" is the British way of spelling it. I have been told to write it in words in previous reviews of my work. I have gone through the article to make sure it is consistent.--Llewee (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "knowledge of the three R's" --> I would recommend rewriting as "academic knowledge", or something similar.

• "The three r's" is quite a common phrase to refer to a basic education focused on literacy and numeracy. I don't think think there is any harm in including it, especially as its meaning is explained.--Llewee (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Terminology

• "Elementary schools, equivalent to primary education, were most people's sole experience of schooling." --> This sentence reads awkwardly.

• I don't think anything can be done about that sorry. I think primary education is a better link than primary school. The former is about the concept in general rather than a specific institution. Llewee (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

"I don't think anything can be done about that sorry"? You sentence is written awkwardly and there's nothing you can do about it? What does "equivalent to primary education" mean without a verb? Also, "most people's" is weird phrasing for a formal setting. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

You don't need to be rude. I have slightly reworded the sentence but I don't think restructuring the whole thing would work. Llewee (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Young children in elementary schools were referred to as the infants." --> Recommend removing the "the".

• Given the word "infants" has other meanings, I think the phrase "the infants" help convey that it's a specific category of schoolchildren. It's also the wording used in the source. Llewee (talk)

The fact that there is a wikilink makes it clear what meaning you are using. And the "the" is super awkward. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Changed this Llewee (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Their age range overlapped with elementary schools..."

• done Llewee (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "The usual starting age at Welsh secondary schools was 12[21] and many students only attended for a few years.[22]" --> Citations must go after punctuation marks or at the end of sentences, so source no. 21 needs to be moved to the end of the sentence.

• Where is that a policy? It just says inline citations are "close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph" at WP:CITETYPE. The citations are covering different parts of the sentence. Llewee (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "The term England was often used to refer to the whole of the island of Great Britain in this period, including Wales.[26]" --> This seems largely irrelevant to this topic; recommend removing altogether.

• The terms are used interchangeable at various points in the article so I think it's helpful to include context. Llewee (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Historical context, 1870 — 1939

• "Most of Ireland left the United Kingdom forming the Irish Free State in the early 1920s." --> Unsourced, but also irrelevant to this topic; recommend removing.

• I have removed this. Llewee (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Numerous unsuccessful proposals were made to create a National Council of Education during this period; a committee of Welsh officials that would have authority over Wales's education system." --> Recommend shuffling the sentence thusly: "Numerous unsuccessful proposals were made to create a National Council of Education, a committee of Welsh officials that would have authority over Wales's education system, during this period."

• done Llewee (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "...recalled about the street where she was born in Pontypool" --> Recommend rephrasing as "spoke (or wrote) about the street..."

• I prefer the previous wording as it emphasises that she was writing a long time later. Llewee (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Recall" is a transitive verb; it needs a direct object or nothing at all, but not a prepositional phrase. The "about" in that sentence needs to go. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• done Llewee (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "The expanding[40] middle-class were interested in Welsh culture.[34]" --> Move source no. 40 to the end of the sentence.
• "The Cymru Fydd (Wales Will Be) movement promoted Welsh nationalism[40] and the idea of home rule began to be debated.[46]" --> Move source no. 40 to the end of the sentence.
• "It started to fall, thereafter, but the economic recovery was slower in South Wales than in most parts of the United Kingdom."

• It seems fine as it is to me. Llewee (talk)

Laws, politics and administration

• Is "Nonconformist" a proper noun or not?

• It is I think from the article on the subject. I have fixed the cases where it wasn't capitalised.--Llewee (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "In others, there was more controversy which sometimes led to a referendum of local people." --> This sentence is unclear.

• added footnote explaining Llewee (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "The usual argument made against their creation was that it would increase, local taxation, the rates." --> I have italicized this portion of the sentence that reads very awkwardly.

• reworded Llewee (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "There were sometimes allegations that local landowners put pressure on their tenants to vote against."

• done Llewee (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "there were complaints that Nonconformist leaders coerced their religious followers into voting a certain way."

• done Llewee (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Electoral behaviour often differed from national elections."

• I think that would be putting to much emphasis on the point. The source doesn't say that it was especially common. Llewee (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• You use a hyphen in the phrase "school-leaving age" earlier in this article, but not here. Pick one.
• "children who wished to leave school at the age of twelve took the Labour Proficiency Examination, in the three R's."

• I have taken out the apostrophe but I don't understand why you want to remove that part of the sentence. Llewee (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Compulsory education was extended to disabled children between the 1890s[3] and the First World War.[19]" --> Move source no. 3 to the end of the sentence.
• You have some ages given as numbers and some spelled out. Pick one to use consistently.

MOS:SPELLNUM says to spell out sometimes, and use digits other times. I have not looked at this article to see if it applies the MOS:SPELLNUM algorithm correctly, but it should not use "all one or all the other". Noleander (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Per MOS:SPELLNUM: “Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if some of the numbers would (or could) normally be written differently.” Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

In previous reviews I have been told to write single digit numbers in words and double digit numbers in figures, in general, I try to do that Llewee (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

In the third paragraph of this section, you have some two-digit numbers spelled out and others written as digits. This is another example of the inconsistency to which I referred yesterday. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I've fixed those now. Llewee (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "These authorities were partially responsible for funding all state schools in their areas"

• I think "would be" works better here as it's describing a new situation. Llewee (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

"Would" is used for hypotheticals. This is not a hypothetical situation in the past; therefore, the past tense is called for. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:53, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

changed to "were to be" Llewee (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "All Welsh counties, with the exception of Radnorshire and Brecknockshire, refused to fully implement the new system at the end of that year."

• That's would imply that they were expected to start implementing the system at the end of 1903. That isn't clear from the source. Llewee (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "...a reference to the Coercion Acts."

• The term "Coercion Acts" was used to refer to a large number of laws passed over several centuries. I think adding "the" would give the impression it was referring to a specific thing. Llewee (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

The fact that "Acts" is plural makes it clear that the sentence is not referring to one specific thing. But the phrase "to Coercion Acts" sounds awkward. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

In my mind, "the Coercion Acts" would suggest a couple of laws, passed at about the same time, to achieve the similar objective. Can we just agree to disagree about this? Llewee (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what the bold highlighting above (throughout this review) is supposed to signify. In at least six of them, the grammar and spelling looks perfect to me. But maybe I'm not understanding the intent of the bold? Noleander (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

What's in bold is my recommended correction. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:06, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• I think the plural of "curriculum" is "curricula". At least according to my spellcheck.

• done Llewee (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "a medical department was set up in the Board of Education, and LECs were required to appoint school medical officers and conduct physical examinations of pupils."

• It's a list of things so "and" is between the final two things in the list. Llewee (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no "and" there at present. That's why I included it here; it needs to be added. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• There is an "and" between the point about school medical officers and the final point about medical inspection.

If "conduct physical examinations of pupils" is your last element in a sequence, then it needs a subject in front of it like all of the other elements in this list. As written, "LECs were required to appoint school medical officers and conduct physical examinations of pupils" is one element. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

added "they were also obliged to" before "conduct" Llewee (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Private, charitable and specialist schools

• "The government assumed that after the 1870 Act, 5% of children..."

• added apostrophes Llewee (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Certain schools existed to cater to wealthy families[78] and these households sometimes sent their children away to be educated.[79]." --> Move source no. 78 to the end of the sentence.
• "They were often criticised by school inspectors; for instance, being considered unhygienic." --> Recommend rewriting as "They were often criticised by school inspectors for being unhygienic."

• There were multiple criticisms but I don't think it's necessary to list them all here.Llewee (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "They later became widespread across Wales and England..."

• done Llewee (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "The Waifs and Strays Society and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children established orphanages..."

• I don't think we need to write "the" twice. Llewee (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Llewee: I am maybe 1/4 of the way through the article and have generated a laundry list of comments as you can see above. There are numerous errors: excessive and improperly-used semicolons, citations placed mid-sentence and not after puncutation, inconsistent uses of numbers v. words, improper use of the past progressive when the simple past should suffice, and so on. I recommend another close re-reading of this text. I do not want to continue doing this review at this point until some efforts are made toward improving the prose. Let me know when you've had a chance to examine my comments and further improve your article before I return to it. Oppose until substantial improvements are made. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98, just as a drive-by comment: citations being placed mid-sentence is not necessarily disallowed; per WP:TSI, if that citation only supports the part of the sentence immediately preceding it, then the location of the citation is fine. Of course, putting the citation at the end of the sentence is acceptable, but is by no means required. Your other comments are fine. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

User talk:Epicgenius: I have been told the opposite in the past. And of course I have passed along that information to others. Thank you for your clarification. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:49, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

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

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

• Clairfy/wording:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Ambiguous: ... can be inferred through its interaction with other matter and with electromagnetic radiation such as visible light. There are two ways to read that: does "interaction" apply only to matter? or also to EM radiation?

• • I changed this to can be inferred through its interaction with matter and electromagnetic radiation.... Hopefully that makes it clearer (that it applies to both). Shocksingularity (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• Does the Evolution section need an introductory sentence or two? That section follows the Formation section, but it may not be clear to readers what Evolution section covers. Consider 1 or 2 sentences at the very start of Evolution section that say something like "After a black hole is formed, it may experience additional events or transformations, including merger, ... etc ..."

• • Done. Added this to the lead: After a black hole forms, it may change through phenomena such as mergers, accretion of matter, and evaporation via Hawking radiation. Shocksingularity (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• Merge Open questions section with Alternatives section into a "Future research" or "Areas of investigation" section? The phrase "Open questions" is a bit idiomatic, and in fact there is a box on the right side that uses the alterntive term "Unsolved problem" ... which is it? You and I know, but readers w/o native English knowledge may get confused by the two phrases. And the "Alternatives" section is also discussing an open question, true? To clarify for lay readers: Consider merging both sections into one called "Areas of investigation" .. (and "Alternatives" becomes a subsection under the merged section).

• • Done. Good idea. Shocksingularity (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• Done for now. I've gone over the article, and I'm struggling to identify any possible improvements: prose, style or citations. In conjunction with the Peer Review I did on this article a couple of weeks ago: I'm leaning support. Ping me in a few days, around 17 March, and I'll make a final pass. Noleander (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

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

TompaDompa

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

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

Graham Beards

I am impressed by the quality of this contribution. I have a couple of nitpicks for now:

• The use of the {{clear}} template under Microlensing is generating too much whitespace.
  • Removed template. Not sure why that was even there. Shocksingularity (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
• Reference 5 is used in the Lead alone and not under Event Horizon. This seems odd. Are the citations necessary in the Lead? (See WP:LEADCITE)
  • I have removed the reference from the lead and moved it to the proper section. Shocksingularity (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps more to come. Graham Beards (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the {{clear}}, I think it generally causes more problems than it solves. The real problem is too many images which starts pushing things out of whack starting around Direct interferometry. Perhaps not all of these images are needed? The "EHT telescopes observe from different angles" one, for example, really doesn't add anything useful. Note that MOS:IMAGEREL says Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. At least some of the image used don't really obey that. Or perhaps {{multiple image}} (especially with direction=horizontal) could be used to get a more compact layout. Another possibility is to scale some of them down with upright=0.85 (or whatever number works). RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• I think the general reader will be thankful for the economy of equations. This comment is just to note that I have checked the ones included for accuracy and I have not found any issues. Also, I like the way the article balances established knowledge with more speculative ideas. I have reservations about the Further Reading section, and the External Links to a lesser extent. This is not an esoteric subject. Do our readers really need this guidance? I doubt it. Graham Beards (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

UC

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

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

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

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

Quick facts Scientific classification, Binomial name ...

Great white shark Temporal range: Early Pliocene - Recent 5–0 Ma PreꞒ Ꞓ O S D C P T J K Pg N ↓ Pal. Eocene Oligo. Miocene P P
Male off Isla Guadalupe, Mexico
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Chondrichthyes
Subclass:	Elasmobranchii
Division:	Selachii
Order:	Lamniformes
Family:	Lamnidae
Genus:	Carcharodon Smith, 1838
Species:	C. carcharias
Binomial name
Carcharodon carcharias (Linnaeus, 1758)

Close

I've implemented the feedback I got from other folks, and the template got a very positive reception, so I believe consensus is there! There's a Cenozoic bar, so something like the following could work: Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Definitely looks like an improvement to me. We can carry on refining and improving, of course, but I'd 100% support pushing it to the article for now. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:13, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removed.

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

Changed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MPF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image review

• Alt text shouldn't replicate captions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support Comments from Noleander

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

• Images in the article are superlative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is adequate for this encyclopedia's needs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second pass

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Lead: consider pinnipeds -> seals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Populations: consider elasmobranchs -> sharks and rays

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Mortality: ectoparasitic - Wikilink or define.

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

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

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

Femke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The text around recovery is still unclear. To me, the text says it's both in decline and recovering. Does this mean the overall numbers are going down but in 59% of its range there is a local recovery? Or does it refer to different time periods? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
• A more recent 2024 clock using shifted the range between 57.2 and 31.8 mya --> rm using

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

• Pilocene -> Pliocene

Fixed.

• Define mya on first mention

Fixed.

• Sisten species?

Fixed.

• chronospecies?

Fixed.

• megalodon?

Fixed.

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

Fixed.

• " became confused --> unnecessary space

Fixed.

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

Fixed.

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

Fixed.

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed.

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

Fixed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• ectoparasite?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• chumming is still unexplained.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Femke, fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  There's one more hidden commentabove about the explanation of how the species can be both in recovery and in decline. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Support Comments from AxonsArachnida

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

@LittleJerry Alright, that's every comment I can think of. Just ping me when you're done. AxonsArachnida (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• You should link "John E. McCosker".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay I think I figured it out. They state that "ϕA" is annual adult survival, so I'm pretty sure that both percentages given are annual survival rather than over the period of the study.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

" Nemesis Lamna" species name is capitalised. AxonsArachnida (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• In the evolutionary tree with cytochrome b, for your date ranges you use hyphens instead of endashes. Ie "65‑46 mya". Is this just meant to be applied different in figures?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• I'm unclear on what the reason(s) for their migration are. I think it's also worth noting that previously only the male was thought to migrate (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1114898).

The article already mentions food (seals near shore, fish at the Cafe) or possibly mating (at the Cafe).

Added more. LittleJerry (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• "White sharks display various surface behaviors. These include spyhopping (poking head out of surface) to observe an object above the water, as well as 'Repetitive Aerial Gaping' where a spyhopping shark repeatedly gapes its mouth while belly-up, possibly as a sign of frustration after missing a bait." This is fine, but I wanted to ask why you chose to describe these two behaviours in particular? The paper you cited has seven other behaviours.

These behaviors are too tedious to mention, like "lateral inspection of object". I also get into breaching below. LittleJerry (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Shocksingularity

Image review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support from Femke

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

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

Image review

• See MOS:COLOUR

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

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

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

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

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

UC

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

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

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

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

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

Let's do a bit more:

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

• There is no clear scenario for the divergent evolution of other subspecies besides O. c. algirus and O. c. cuniculus, evidenced by a lack of genetic diversity: I still don't understand this. Between them? Within each subspecies? Come to think of it, the first half is pretty unclear as well. Do we mean something like "it is considered unlikely that other subspecies besides ... have ever evolved, since... [some clearer explanation of how genetic diversity shows this]"?
• Genetic studies undertaken in 2008, however, indicated only two extant subspecies, O. c. cuniculus and O. c. algirus, native to the Iberian Peninsula and parts of northern Africa, where most of the European rabbit's evolutionary history is centred; as of 2022, only these two subspecies are recognized: it feels like the weighting is wrong here. We started with six subspecies presented in a nice authoritative list, and then we've gone back and said "actually, we lied -- only the first two of these are real". I think it would be clearer to start with the two, and then saying that biologists previously identified six, but now think that there's no way that extra subspecies evolved from the two (for the genetic-diversity reasons mentioned above), so have decided that the rabbits they previously called brachyotus, cnossius, and habetensis are really just cuniculus, and the ones they previously called huxleyi are the same as algirius.
  • @UndercoverClassicist: Here's my efforts on rewriting the "Subspecies" subsection: User:Reconrabbit/sandbox/subspecies I didn't touch on why the more recently accepted subspecies were synonymized, though more on the historical front is covered. Some authors are also not described in detail (ex. "American naturalist") because I could not find that information (but could extrapolate based on location, publication topic...) -- Reconrabbit 19:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  It looks pretty good, at least to my non-expert eyes. I'd have a few minor quibbles about various things, but it's probably best to handle those once it's pushed here to avoid making this review even more confusing and complicated by splitting it into two places. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Do we need to do anything with the names kreyenbergi, vermicula and vernicularis here?
  • I'm working on a rewrite of the above 3 points in a sandbox - this whole paragraph needs to be redone. kreyenbergi has its deal spelled out here, and in 1912 vermicula and vernicularis were described as nomina nuda. This should probably be the case for algirus honestly given how sparse it is but we have to deal with what the texts say. -RR
• Introduced to the Azores, Madeira, and Canary Islands, the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicily.: this is a compound list thanks to the and after Madeira, so we need a semicolon for every comma after Canary Islands.
  • Done -RR
• The oldest known fossils of the currently living European rabbit species, Oryctolagus cuniculus, appeared in the Middle Pleistocene age in southern Spain: slight nit-pick: better to say that they date from then (we care about when the rabbit lived, not when the corpse became a fossil). Better nit-pick: can we put a date on the Middle Pleistocene?
  • I wrote it out later for some reason. 0.6 Mya. Redone. -RR
• I would spell out MYA on first use.
  • Done (with the Ma template also). -RR
• The first fossils assignable to the genus Oryctolagus appeared during the Miocene epoch: as above.
• Glacial activity would confine European rabbit populations to the Iberian Peninsula and southern France by the Early Holocene epoch: ditto. I think this needs a bit more explanation (e.g. that and when glaciers spread over most of what is now northern and central Europe).
  • I had trouble here... I was able to find information on widespread permafrost, but not what the specific glaciation event was. -RR
    • It's the Last Glacial Period: the existence of the glaciers whose retreat (the Holocene glacial retreat) started the Holocene. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
• Adult European rabbits measure on average 40 centimetres (16 inches) in length, and typically weigh 1.2–2.0 kilograms (2.6–4.4 pounds).: it's a bit odd that we've got a single length figure but a large range of weights -- do we have 40cm long rabbits weighing 1.2kg and weighing 2kg?
  • I updated that with 2016 numbers (in a 2026 work). Larger(?) ranges. -RR
• Size and weight vary according to food and habitat quality, with rabbits living on light soil with nothing but grass to feed on being noticeably smaller than specimens living on highly cultivated farmlands with plenty of roots and clover: more readable and flows better as Size and weight vary according to food and habitat quality. Rabbits living on light soil with nothing but grass to feed on are noticeably smaller than specimens living on highly cultivated farmlands with plenty of roots and clover.
  • I think I corrected this from another reviewer's comments as you were writing this! -RR
• One large specimen, caught in February 1890 in Lichfield: I would clarify that Lichfield is in England.
  • +England, -RR
• The skull of the European rabbit displays a significant facial tilt of roughly 45° forward relative to the base of the skull at rest, which supports their means: agreement is off here.
  • Changed to 'its' -RR
• their growth and use is correlated to that of the rest of the rabbit's body,: correlated with. The use of the rabbit's hind legs is correlated with the use of the rest of its body?
  • I couldn't find explanation on this in the original source or elsewhere, this is removed and the paragraph expanded with a different, more recent source. -RR
• The degree of territorial behaviour varies with habitat; for example, rabbits found in chalk grassland are more territorial than those found in regions with abundant shrubs: has anyone suggested why?
  • This altered behaviour isn't mentioned often and the cited source doesn't provide a reason why it happens - might be best to exclude this for now. -RR
• it typically only moves 25 m (82 ft): assuming the 25m is the original figure, I would round to 80: I don't think the source mean 25 as opposed to 24 or 26.
  • Rounded with sig figs. -RR
• Dominance hierarchies exist in parallel for both bucks and does: we haven't yet explained what these are: we previously said "males" and "females". I would be tempted to stick with that, but we should at least bracket on first mention.
  • I added clarifications at the start of the section ("males, referred to as bucks...") and also added etymology to the relevant section before (copied from Rabbit). -RR

Traumnovelle

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

RHD is a disease not a virus.

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

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

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

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

• Support Traumnovelle (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Bgsu98 (3/7/26)

Lead

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

Subspecies

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

Description

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

Reproduction and development

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

Diet

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

Diseases, parasites and immunity

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

Origins

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

Linguistic record

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

Domestication

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

As an introduced species

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MPF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MSincccc

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

Lead

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

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

Naming and etymology

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

Evolution

• The following cladogram encompassing the known genera of rabbits and hares is based on work done by Matthee and colleagues in 2004 and clarifications from Abrantes and colleagues in 2011
  • You could introduce "Mathee" and "Abrantes" on first mention.
    • I struggle to figure out how to do so... but tried rewording it anyway. -RR
      • You could name the two by their full names and, in brief, by their occupations (the...). MSincccc (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
• Iberian Peninsula could be linked on first mention in the body (rather than on the second mention).
• "Molecular studies confirm that the resemblance between the two is due to convergent evolution" → "Molecular studies confirm the resemblance is due to convergent evolution"
• all of which were characteristics not seen in hares
  • This portion could be rephrased/trimmed.
    • An attempt was made. -RR

Description

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

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

Life history and behaviour

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

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

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

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

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

Ecology

• "up to treeline" → "up to the treeline"
• "pass down to the rectum" → "pass to the rectum"
• "after which the eyelids swell, with the inflammation quickly spreading to the base of the ears, the forehead, and nose" → "after which the eyelids swell, and the inflammation quickly spreads..."
  • You could rephrase it; I leave it to you.
• During escape, the display of the tail can serve both to indicate the rabbit's ability to escape through honest signalling, which shows a potential predator that the rabbit would take a lot of energy to catch, and to potentially confuse a predator.
  • You could split this sentence and/or rephrase it. It reads a bit too long at present.
• "with death usually following on the 11th or 12th day of infection" → "with death usually following on day 11 or 12"

MSincccc (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Ii've added all of these changes (and changed "dwell" to "live" in the first referenced sentence). I don't love the way I had to rewrite the section about honest signalling, if you have a better suggestion please offer it. -- Reconrabbit 16:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Image review

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

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

MSincccc

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

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

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

Lead

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

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

Definition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Types of cognitive processes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Development

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

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

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

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

Non-human

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

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

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

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

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

In various fields

• You could link to Computational model and Mathematical model.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theories (Classical computationalism)

• "cognitions operate on strings to create new strings" → "cognitions operate on strings to create new ones"
  • Avoids repetition.

    I kept it for the sake of clarity: some readers may misinterpret the "new ones" to refer to cognitions. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• "individual processes work similar to an electronic calculator" → "individual processes work similarly to an electronic calculator"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• "The intermediary level involves the decomposition of the process into" → "The intermediary level decomposes the process into individual steps"

  Simplified. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• "mental states like beliefs and desires are realized through mentalese sentences" → "mental states like beliefs and desires are realized as mentalese sentences"
  • More idiomatic?

    Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Theories (Connectionism)

• "The nodes are locally linked with each other"

→ "The nodes are locally linked to each other."

• • More idiomatic?

    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "At the end of the process stands an output layer" → "At the end of the process is an output layer"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "and broadcast to nodes" → "and is broadcast to nodes"

  We already have the "is" in the first part of the sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "on a higher level of abstraction" → "at a higher level of abstraction"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "electrochemical activities of neurons" → "electrochemical activity of neurons"

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• A few more suggestions. Please don't mind if the review is taking longer than usual. MSincccc (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Theories (Representationalism and anti-representationalism)

• "depict the state of the world" → "depict states of the world"

  Both are possible, but I find the singular slightly clearer. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "arises from the interaction between an organism and its environment" → "arises from interaction between an organism and its environment"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "critical of the prioritization of internal representations" → "critical of prioritizing internal representations"

MSincccc (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• I also noticed that a source uses Anti-Represenationalism: Dynamical Stystems Theory, A-Life and Embodied Cognition.

Should it be "Anti-Representationalism" or is it intentionally misspelt? MSincccc (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Nice catch. It turns out that it is a spelling mistake in the source. I fixed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Theories (Other theories)

• "that the mind is entirely composed of modules" → "that the mind is entirely modular"

  The term modular is often used in contexts where the parts can be swapped or rearranged. It might give a false impression in this context. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• Its central idea is that representations of the environment can be more or less reliable and that the laws of probability theory describe how to integrate information and manage uncertainty.
  • You could avoid repetition; it comes across as a bit long.

    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "the brain creates and adjusts its internal representation of the environment by predicting what is going to happen, comparing the predictions to reality, and updating the internal representation accordingly" → "the brain predicts outcomes, checks them against reality, and updates its internal model" or similar versions.
  • You could rephrase to trim down the sentence while retaining the intended meaning.

    I implemented a slight variation. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Bottom line

Phlsph7 That should be all from me. I might return with a more suggestions later, if any, but the article is in good shape. MSincccc (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for all the helpful comments! Phlsph7 (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Good luck with Cognition. Hopefully, it won't meet the same fate as Rules of inference. I will support the nomination. Cheers. MSincccc (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

UC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• the highest expected utility: the highest expected what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yestsrday, all my comments...

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

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

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

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

Here? Wikipedia:Peer review/Cognition/archive1

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

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

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

Support from Femke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Will continue from artificial later.
• phenomenal consciousness?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from Shocksingularity

Seems like an interesting article. Sorry if I repeat any of the suggestions mentioned above, I only skimmed through them. Be warned that I am a bit of a nitpicker, don't take it too much to heart!

MCE89

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

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

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

• • Done.-G

@MCE89: Ach! I had implemented most of these already but forgot to ping. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 13:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Image review

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

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

MSincccc

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

Lead

• "19th century scholars" → "19th-century scholars"
  • Fixed.-G

Early life and education

• "Gu's father Gu Tongying was born in 1585." → "Gu's father, Gu Tongying, was born in 1585."
  • Fixed.-G
• Taking Gu Shaofei's advice, he began to focus less on the examinations, and began to focus on private studies.
  • You could avoid repeating "focus" in close proximity.

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

• • Fixed.-G

Career

• Gu did not go, partially because he had not yet officially buried his mother, and partially because the servant described the prince as having difficulties establishing a firm control over the region.
  • You could avoid repeating "partially" and could split the sentence; I leave it to you.
  • Fixed.-G
• He worked with the scholar Wang Hongzhuang (王宏撰) Gu did not
  • A typo in this sentence – a missing full stop or conjunction; I leave it to you.
  • Fixed.-G
• Collected Posthumous Writings of Gu Tingli
  • I suppose it should be "Tinglin", or is "Tingli" an alternative name?
    • Oops, yep. Fixed.-G

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

Philosophy

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

Bottom line

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

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

@Generalissima: I look forward to your response. Thanks. MSincccc (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc: Sorry for the delay! Responded. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Generalissima No worries. I was not aware of the subject, until I came across it at FAC, but it meets the standards (like your other articles). Hence, I will support. Best, MSincccc (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

ThO

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

@ThaesOfereode: Obligatory ping! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

MCE89

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

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

• Rewritten. Let me know what you think.

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

• Removed altogether.

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

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

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

• Done.

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

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

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

• Done.

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

• Slightly rewritten.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Slightly rephrased.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RoySmith

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

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

Image review

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

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

• Done.

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

• Done.

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

• Done.

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

• Done.

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

Pass Arconning (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

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

Lead

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

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

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

Description

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

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

Interior

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

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

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

Reception and impact

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

Bottom line

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

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

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

Olliefant

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

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

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

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

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• Captions need editing for grammar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

  Says whom? Volcanoguy 05:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  See MOS:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  With no fixed px size, the image is too small for readers to make out the text on a PC. Volcanoguy 05:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Replaced px size with upright. Volcanoguy 15:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• File:Big_Raven_Plateau_geological_map.png: see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  I don't know what to do here? Volcanoguy 17:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  You could change to shades that are distinguishable in greyscale, or add labels or textures. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  I've changed the shades in accordance to the recommended color combinations. The only shades I used that aren't recommended for a white background are "white" and "orange red", which are used on black, purple, maroon, blue and royal blue backgrounds. Volcanoguy 00:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Femke

Normally my drive-by comments focus on WP:EXPLAINLEAD. The "broadest likely audience" might not be a general audience here perhaps, but certainly includes those with only a secondary-school background in geology. The lead now assumes much more knowledge than this audience would have.

But I think the issue with the lead goes deeper than that: it tries to convey too much information, in a very dense fashion. There are seas of blue with long summations that do not make for engaging reading (i.e. the long lists of creeks, and long list of composition), quite long paragraphs, use of overly formal English (using words like comprise). A shorter lead would likely be more engaging, really focussing on the basics (like the size, elevation, character) and what makes this plateau notable / interesting. Refocussing like that will likely automatically make the lead more accessible to the broad audience of this article, as you'd omit jargon like interbedded, breccias, and details creating long sentences like where those geothermal springs are. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The whole purpose of the lead is to summarize the article's most important content per WP:LEAD. It's not unusual for an article of this size to have a long introduction. I don't think the plateau's size, character, notability, etc. is that important, especially since there is a lack of such information. The lead already mentions the plateau's highest point (Mount Edziza) at 2,786 metres (9,140 ft), but there is a lack of information about the plateau's surface elevation. I don't see any WP:SEAOFBLUE in the lead; the links to creek and rock articles are separated by commas. Geology is clearly an important subject to the Big Raven Plateau article because without geology, the plateau would obviously not exist since it was created by volcanic activity. With all of that being said, I don't see the problem with the use of overly formal English. Volcanoguy 15:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

That summary should still meet MOS:JARGON and be engaging. I don't think the current summary is, as it's extremely dense. If you disagree with my suggestions about what should be in the lead, I don't mind other options, but I will oppose if the lead continues to be this tough to read. When you go above the typical 250-400 word lead for an FA, I would organise it in 4 (or even 5) paragraphs, instead of 3 very long ones. I suggest you shorten it though, as shortening it forces you to prioritise what should be in, under the constraint of being understandable to your widest likely audience. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I will try to reorganize the lead. Volcanoguy 17:47, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I've reorganized the lead and made it slightly smaller. Volcanoguy 23:43, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The rest of the article is better written, but still there are overly stiff and formal sentences and the prose can be challenging in places.

• The sentence with the ice cap size seems overcited. Is the 1992 the only source that say it's 70 m2? Globally, ice caps have shrunk 5-10% since that period.

  There does not seem to be more recent sources for the size of the ice cap, which isn't surprising since the plateau is in a remote location that hasn't received a lot of studies since 1992. How is this sentence overcited? Volcanoguy 18:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  Given that it's likely shrunk, might be good to place this in context (measured in 1992 / 1975 or something). Was it measured in 92? Or even earlier? The sentence now has 4 citations. I usually expect uncontroversial statements to have 1 or 2 citations rather than 4. The more citations, the more flow is broken. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  I've added 1992 in the sentence and was able cut the number of citations down to three. More than two sources are cited for this sentence because it combines information from several sources, not because the statement made is controversial. Volcanoguy 23:43, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• simultaneously on 104G?

  It is stated previously that 104G is a map of the National Topographic System. Volcanoguy 18:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• Exposures of the 1.1-million year-old Pyramid Formation are limited only to the northeastern, eastern and southeastern ends of the Big Raven Plateau where it is in the form of rhyolite and trachyte domes, flows and pyroclastic breccia > Example of overly long sentence. Limited already implies 'only', needless word. I would split in two: Exposures of the 1.1-million-year-old Pyramid Formation are limited to the northeastern, eastern and southeastern ends of the Big Raven Plateau. These areas feature rhyolite and trachyte domes, flows, and pyroclastic breccia" or something like that. Also, add a hyphen.

  I think a semicolon could be used here instead of splitting the sentence into two (e.g. Exposures of the 1.1-million-year-old Pyramid Formation are limited to the northeastern, eastern and southeastern ends of the Big Raven Plateau; these areas feature rhyolite and trachyte domes, flows and pyroclastic breccia). Volcanoguy 18:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yes that works too! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  Done. Volcanoguy 20:11, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• Grammar? Alpine vegetation such as grasses are present above the tree line, but at higher elevations, barren rock is dominate. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  "Dominate" was supposed to be "dominant". Volcanoguy 17:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the lead rewrite! Some suggestions for polishing the prose:

• oval in structure > oval in shape

  Done. Volcanoguy 17:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• In the east, the Big Raven Plateau has been heavily eroded; this is in contrast to its western and northern sides where it has been moderately and slightly eroded, respectively. > The eastern side of the plateau is heavily eroded, whereas the western and northern sides are moderately and slightly eroded, respectively. (In general, using words like former, latter, respectively forces a reader to jump back, impeding flow but if you keep the word close totit's antecedents it's not too disruptive)

  Done. Volcanoguy 17:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Draining the Big Raven Plateau are several small streams that flow into the surrounding valleys; these valleys contain the Klastline River and the Mess, Kakiddi, Chakime and Walkout creeks > Several small streams drain the plateau into the surrounding valleys, including the Klastline River and Mess, Kakiddi, Chakime and Walkout creeks.

  I don't think this works because valleys and creeks are two different things. Volcanoguy 17:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• The Big Raven Plateau is about 35 by 20 kilometres (22 by 12 miles) in size. > The plateau measures about 35 by 20 kilometres (22 by 12 miles). If you decide to keep conversion to US units, place them so that they don't interrupt the sentence flow. Consider omitting them.

  I've changed the sentence structure, but I don't understand why the conversions should be omitted. Articles, especially FAs, normally convert units. Volcanoguy 17:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  MOS:CONVERSION says it's not required unless there is a special reason for scientific articles. It's a trade-off. Given the tendency towards overly long sentences, I imagine this article would be better without, unless the locals use these US units too. But perfectly fine to keep the conversions. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  It's not unusual for Canadians to use both metric and imperial units. This is especially true for those who were born before Canada transitioned from the imperial to the metric system. Volcanoguy 17:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Its dominant topographic feature is Mount Edziza, an ice-covered volcanic massif reaching an elevation of 2,786 metres (9,140 feet) in the middle of the plateau. > Its dominant feature is Mount Edzina ... I feel topographic is unnecessary and may not be familiar to most readers

  Done. Volcanoguy 17:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• The northern and southern ends of the plateau contain the Desolation and Snowshoe lava fields, respectively, which include several cinder cones. > The Desolation and Snowshoe lava fields occupy the northern and southern ends of the plateau and contain several cinder cones. (?)

  The problem with this rewording is that it doesn't make it clear which ends the lava fields are located. Volcanoguy 17:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  The inversion is still a bit distracting in my view. I understand the drive to mix up sentence structure, but you start with less important elements of the sentence so often that it reduces readability. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  Is this better? Volcanoguy 19:11, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, it is, thanks. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• Avoid unnecessary semicolons: Access is mainly by aircraft or by a network of horse trails from surrounding roads. The closest roads to the Big Raven Plateau are Telegraph Creek Road and the Stewart–Cassiar Highway.

  Done. Volcanoguy 17:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• At least 10 geological formations comprise the Big Raven Plateau, each being the product of a distinct period of volcanic activity. > The Big Raven Plateau consists of at least ten geological formations, each formed during distinct periods of volcanic activity. If you want to use the word comprise, use the standard word order (Whole comprises parts), but ideally keep your text accessible to younger readers too. Avoid WP:PLUSING.

  The problem with this is that it starts with "The", which is already used in the beginning of the first two paragraphs. I consider this as a form of repetition. The word "comprise" means exactly what you're suggesting here, "to consist of". I have to admit that I find some of your suggestions questionable since English does not seem to be your native language. Volcanoguy 17:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  Hmm.. I don't know how to respond to that. I used to consider being a ESL speaker as giving me an edge in reviews: it's easier to spot awkward or overly complicated phrasing in a foreign language. I've probably lost that edge now after nearly 10 years in the UK.

  Of course I know what comprise means: I've seen it in old books and on Wikipedia enough. I wouldn't suggest sticking to the standard word order if I was unfamiliar with the word.

  I've replaced "comprise" with "make up". Is this better? Volcanoguy 19:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  It is yes. "Form" also works in the parts X whole construction, and I believe sounds more natural. For instance, you can fix "They comprise the summit of Ice Peak" to "They form the summit of the Ice Peak". Not awake enough to be able to parse all the other sentences with comprise to check if the word is used correctly. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  Done. Volcanoguy 15:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  In don't think starting multiple paragraphs with the is that noticeable myself, but views may differ. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• They were deposited by successive eruptions of lava and pyroclastic rocks from as early as 7.4 million years ago to as recently as around 950 CE. > They were formed by successive eruptions of lava and pyroclastic rock between about 7.4 million years ago and around 950 CE.

  The problem with this is that the ages of the latest eruptions at not precisely known. Volcanoguy 17:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  Neither version really makes that clear. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  Is this better? Volcanoguy 19:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• wide range of volcanic rocks characterizes the Big Raven Plateau, the most common of which is basalt; it occurs in most of the geological formations comprising the plateau. > The plateau contains a wide range of volcanic rocks, most commonly basalt, which occurs in most formations.

  Same as above. Volcanoguy 17:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  Not sure what you mean there, as there are quite a few suggestions here to omit needless words. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• The volcanic rocks characterizing the plateau are in the form of lava flows, lava domes and breccias. > These volcanic rocks occur as lava flows, lava domes and breccias. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  This makes it sound as if most of the eruptions in the last 20,000 years have produced lava flows, lava domes and breccias, which isn't the case. Volcanoguy 17:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  Fair. Open to other wording that avoids the repetition of characterize. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• (location) Avoid starting a sentence twice with 'between'.

  Done. Volcanoguy 17:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Avoid overly long sentences. The northern end of the Big Raven Plateau is bounded by the Klastline River valley whereas the southern end is bounded by two relatively small east–west trending valleys; a mountain ridge extends south of the Big Raven Plateau between these valleys > The Klastline River valley bounds the northern end of the plateau. The southern end is bounded by two relatively small east–west trending valleys, between which a mountain ridge extends south of the plateau

  Done. Volcanoguy 17:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• the two youngest central volcanoes, Mount Edziza and Ice Peak, are on the Big Raven Plateau > avoid repeating central volcanoes

  Done. Volcanoguy 19:53, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• All of these landforms are in Mount Edziza Provincial Park, one of the largest provincial parks in British Columbia established in 1972 to preserve the volcanic landscape > one idea per sentence: " All of these landforms lie within Mount Edziza Provincial Park, one of the largest provincial parks in British Columbia. The park was established in 1972 to preserve the volcanic landscape"

  Done. Volcanoguy 17:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• behind which the Nuttlude, Kakiddi, Mowdade and Mowchilla lakes have ponded > have formed

  Done. Volcanoguy 17:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Another overly long sentence with a somewhat archaic inversion:Forming the southwestern edge of the Big Raven Plateau is the Mess Creek Escarpment, which extends at least 25 km (16 mi) to the south where it forms the western edge of the Kitsu Plateau. > The Mess Creek Escarpment forms the southwestern edge of the plateau. It extends..

  I've made this sentence shorter. Volcanoguy 20:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• Colluvium?

  Added a footnote. Volcanoguy 22:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• Immediately north of Mount Edziza is the Desolation Lava Field, which covers an area of more than 150 km2 (58 mi2) and mostly issued from cinder cones near the northern trim line of Mount Edziza's ice cap > overly long and I'm not sure if it's grammatically correct: The Desolation Lava Field lies immediately north of Mount Edziza. It covers more than 150 km² (58 mi2) and mostly originated from cinder cones near the northernmtrim line of Mount Edziza’s ice cap.

  I've split this sentence but I didn't use your suggested wording; see here. Volcanoguy 16:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• The southern and western flanks are approximal to those of the original stratovolcano : what is approximal?

  Reworded. Volcanoguy 16:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• Williams Cone is the largest, reaching 1.2 km (0.75 mi) wide at its base and rising about 275 m (902 ft) on the northeastern side of Mount Edziza > Williams Cone is the largest, with a base approximately 1.2 km (0.75 mi) in width and a height of about 275 m (902 ft) above the northeastern flank of Mount Edziza

  That's more wordy isn't it? Volcanoguy 17:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• Throughout: Replace Big Raven Plateau with plateau upon second mention in any paragraph (eg in climate)

  Done. Volcanoguy 17:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• The two oldest geological formations comprising the Big Raven Plateau are the Raspberry and Armadillo formations > The two oldest are the Raspberry and Armadillo formations.

  I don't think that's a good idea since the previous sentence is describing volcanic activity and magmatic cycles rather than geological formations. Volcanoguy 17:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• The fifth, sixth and seventh oldest geological formations comprising the Big Raven Plateau are the Ice Peak, Pillow Ridge and Edziza formation > same, as well as final sentence there. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  This brings up the question: "The fifth, sixth and seventh oldest what?". I did, however, replace "geological formations" with "stratigraphic units" in the next sentence to avoid repetitiveness. Volcanoguy 17:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• As an aside, I cannot recommend WP:redex enough. Getting rid of redundancy and other needless words can make text much more pleasant to read. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  Redundancy isn't always a bad thing, especially if it's needed for clarification in more technical subjects like geology. Volcanoguy 17:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  Sometimes you can use redundancy as a way to give "hints" for jargon, for instance using a tactical partial tautology. The examples I suggested you remove usually aren't of this type. E.g. there is no technical reason to include the word "being" in this sentence: The Big Raven Plateau is subdivided into at least 10 geological formations, each being the product ..

  "Each the product" doesn't sound right to me. It's possible what you are considering to be redundant might just be regional differences in English. Volcanoguy 18:51, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  Take a look at {{Canadian English}}, which clearly says that Canadian English has its own spelling conventions and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. Volcanoguy 19:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  An even cleaner way of saying it could be 'each produced', 'each originating [from]' or 'each created'. I don't think this is a langvar issue. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  I would take this more seriously if there was an actual MOS that says redundancy and other needless words should be avoided in writing articles. We clearly don't agree what is considered to be redundant and linking to someone's user space (WP:REDEX) does not convince me. Volcanoguy 00:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  I've reworded this part of the sentence to "each representing a distinct period of volcanic activity". Volcanoguy 21:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  Readers start getting a lower reader comprehension from around 15 words. Many outside manual of styles for nontechnical audiences will impose a 25-word sentence limit. I spotted several sentences over 35 words in your text. Once I've reached the end, I might not remember the start. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  A sentence that is considered to be too long or too short varies from person to person. It's pretty normal to have sentences that are longer than others. Volcanoguy 21:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  Very good point, it varies by person. We're here to bring knowledge to the world, and should not exclude those with below-average education. If I struggle with a firm science background and a love of reading, it means that a large share of our readers will struggle. And I've never argued your sentences should be the same length. Varying between 5 and 25 words gives you plenty to work with. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not aware of an actual MOS that claims sentences should not be more than 25 words. User-generated guides such as WP:REDEX are quite questionable in my opinion. Someone does not need an above-average education to read a sentence with more words than what you are suggesting. Volcanoguy 00:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• I'm going to step away from the final half of the review, as I don't think this review has been pleasurable for either side. I do not consider it appropriate to question someone's competence based on whether they are a native speaker. Will still reply to comments for the first half of the review. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  I don't have a problem with your review. The reason I questioned your competence was because from my experience, native speakers have a better understanding of their language. But that doesn't necessarily mean all people who have a second language don't know it very well. I wasn't trying to insult or belittle you. Volcanoguy 16:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  I appreciate your response. Still, I notice a scepticism that does not make for a nice reviewer experience. It's trivial to find style guides (e.g. from the Canadian, UK, US governments) that put restrictions on sentence length. Not saying that we have to abide by external style guides of course, but it should give us pause when we deviate a lot. Your response seems to imply you do not belief me when I point out a common recommendation.

  @Femke: It's not about a lack of belief but rather if it's really a necessity. Like I said above, a sentence that is considered to be too long or too short varies from person to person because everyone has their own preferences and opinions. I've had one reviewer tell me in the past about sentences being too simple, this time it's about sentences being too long. Other users who have reviewed my FACs didn't seem to have a problem with my sentence lengths. Do you see what I mean? Volcanoguy 05:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  It would also be more helpful to specify what sentences you think should be shortened or split. Volcanoguy 05:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Femke: After giving it some more thought I'm open to your suggestions of making sentences shorter and removing redundancy. Please forgive me. Let's get this done and over with. I've started cutting the lengths of sentences. Volcanoguy 21:53, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  Remember that reviewers are trying to do you a favour: taking time out of their own interests to help you achieve an excellent article. I'm happy to get pushback—some of my suggestions may not work—but I don't want to feel like I'm fighting for common-sense suggestions. Best of luck with the rest of the review. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  I appreciate you and others helping me to achieve excellent articles, I think there's a misunderstanding. Volcanoguy 05:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Review

• "more than 900 m (3,000 ft) in elevation" is a bit ambiguous.

  I've moved this to create another sentence: "The plateau surface reaches an elevation of at least 1,800 m (6,000 ft) while the slopes descend to an elevation of around 910 m (3,000 ft)." Volcanoguy 20:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• "which has resulted in the creation of " seems a bit long.

  Split sentence. Volcanoguy 20:31, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• ""Geographical Names Board of Canada". Government of Canada. June 29, 2011. Archived from the original on May 24, 2024. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFGovernment_of_Canada:_Geographical_Names_Board_of_Canada" throws a citation error.

  Removed. Volcanoguy 19:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• Mount Edziza has sections on human use that might be pertinent here given that Edziza rises on BRP.

  I don't see anything in that article about human use that refers to the plateau. Volcanoguy 19:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Didn't notice anything, but that comment above gives me a bit of pause re: prose. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

The prose isn't that different from other articles I have brought to FA. In fact, Macauley Island has some long sentences as well. Volcanoguy 19:58, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

ZooBlazer

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

Done

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

Done

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

Done

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

Reworded

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

Done

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

Done

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

Done

• "According to Nakanashi" — should be Nakanishi

Done

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

Done

MSincccc

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

Lead

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

Done

Concept and design

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

Done

• You could link to creative director at your discretion.

Done

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

Done

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

Done

Appearances

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

Done

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

Replaced to "Decide"

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

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

Critical reception

• You could link to Video game journalism.

Done

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

Removed per below

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

Seems so I removed "most popular"

• "most-likable" → "most likable"

Done

Bottom line

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

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

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

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

Support from LastJabberwocky

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

• refs 11, 39, 40 can have access dates

Done

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

Done

• Can we add ISBN to refs 89 and 90?

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

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

Done

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

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

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

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

Changed to Capcom DESIGN Works.

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

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

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

Rephrase and changed source

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

Removed the source since it has no place at concept section

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

Rephrased

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

RoySmith

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

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

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

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

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

Source review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those are accessible. I sent you an email for that. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 19:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

RandomEdits

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

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

Lede

This looks fine to me, no issues.

Concept and design

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

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

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

Rephrased

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

Reworded

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

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

• Any reason Leon wasn't in RE5?

He didn't appear in Re5

• What is Leon's "Chinese outfit"?

Unfortunately, the book was not specific

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

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

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

Reworded

Voice-over and live-action actors

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

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

Appearances

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

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

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

Added

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

Added

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

Removed

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

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

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

Reworded

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

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

Other appearances

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

Removed

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

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

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

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

Critical reception

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Driveby comment from Crisco

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

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

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

Octave

Responding to a request on my talk:

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

Reworded

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

Reworded

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

Reworded

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

Done

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

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

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

This has been reworded due to the reviewer above.

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

This has been reworded due to the reviewer above.

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

Reworded

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

Reworded

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

Reworded

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

Removed

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

Reworded

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

Added

• cool/attractive – see MOS:/.

This has been reworded due to the reviewer above.

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

Reworded

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

Reworded

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

Done