Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tara Lipinski/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2022 [1].

---

Tara Lipinski

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

This article is about figure skating gold medalist and commentator Tara Lipinski. If passed, it would be only the fifth FA about figure skating, and the first bio about a skater. It would fill in a much-needed content and gender gap and would bring more attention to the sport of figure skating, which due to its gendered status (i.e., most skaters are women), hasn't received the kind of attention it deserves in most areas of the world. Lipinski has made big contributions to the sport, both as a skater and as a commentator. It's a fun and interesting bio. I look forward to the comments. Enjoy! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Aoba47

I've always loved figure skating, but I actually know very little about it so this is very much a non-expert review if that is okay with you. I will post a full review sometime next week, but I do have some comments below for the time being:

No problem, @Aoba47; I appreciate the feedback anyway. No expectations regarding expertise. ;)

• The height in the infobox has a citation needed tag.

Removed because I couldn't find a recent reliable source.

• Thank you for removing this part. Would it be standard to have height in the infobox for this type of article? Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yah sometimes. For current athletes, that information's easy to find and support because of stat pages, but not always for former athletes like Lipinski. I think the safest thing is to remove it as per your suggestion.

• Would it be beneficial to link single skating in "competitor in ladies' singles" in the lede?

Yes of course, done. I also changed ladies' to women's as per Wikiproject Figure Skating policy.

• I have two comments about this sentence: She is the first woman to complete a triple loop-triple loop combination, her signature jump, in competition. I would link figure skating jumps at the end. Is there a way to include a link for the "triple loop-triple loop combination" to help with unfamiliar readers like myself? Triple loop is already linked in the article.

Yes again of course. Done. For clarification: for your second link suggestion, I linked only the word "loop" to "Loop jump." Is that enough?

• That looks good to me. Thank you for addressing this point. Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Should the first sentence in the "Early life" section use Lipinski's full name (i.e. with her middle name)?

Done.

• I am guessing there is not any information on her mother's occupation?

Yes that's correct.

• Is there any further context to "the end of the relationship between the Lipinskis and DiGregorio"?

Nope.

• I have a question about some of the quotes in the article. In some areas, such (as spent the next year making her "appear more mature"), the quote is not directly attributed in the prose. Rather than listing these instances here, I wanted to get your opinion about this?

I know there are some differences in opinion about this. I'd like your opinion: Do you think that I'm overreffing? Personally, I prefer to put the ref, if two quotes from the same sentence are from the same ref, at the end, to capture that both quotes are from the same ref. I put the ref twice because I've been instructed by other editors to do it this way, especially at GAN and here at FAC. I will follow the recommendation of the reviewers here.

• My point was less about the referencing and more about the attribution in the prose. There are spots in the article where a quote is used but the individual and work/publisher is not specifically attributed in the prose. In one of my GANs, a reviewer referred to this as "ghost quotes" which I found both amusing and a solid way of describing this type of thing. I just was not sure if the attribution should be more clearly presented in the prose to avoid any confusion on where it is coming and to avoid having it interpreted as being presented in Wikipedia's voice. Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, now I see what you mean. I went through and fixed all the instances of it, I think.

• The article gets into the perceived Kwan-Lipinski rivalry, but have either of them publicly commented on this?

Oh sure they have, at the time and as late as 2021, according to one source I found. I guess I chose not to include it because other than Kestnbaum's reporting that it was a thing, I didn't think that information was encyclopedic. If you and other reviewers think it should be included, I would be happy to put it in.

• I will leave that up to other reviewers. I can see your point about it getting very gossip-y or tabloid-y very quickly though. Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Does the article discuss either of her books in the prose?

Nope, mostly because the sources state that she wrote and published them, and that's all.

• I still think it would be worthwhile to add a brief sentence or two about it to the prose (i.e. the titles, publication year, publishers, etc.) because it felt like I missed something when I scrolled to the bottom and saw that she had released two books. Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, done.

• Some of the citations do not have the work/publisher linked. For instance, Cosmopolitan is not linked in Citation 2.

My preference is that I don't link works/publishers in the citations, but somebody went behind me and linked some of them. I'll make it consistent, though. Which direction would you want me to go? I'm fine with either way.

• I would go with any direction that you would prefer. What really would matter is consistency so if you would prefer to not have anything linked, then unlink everything. I do wonder why you would choose that route since I would think having the works/publishers linked would only help readers who may want to read more about the specific citations, but again, it is really up to you. Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's mostly just aesthetics, which is why if you or another reviewer directs me to link them, I would. I mean, the ref is linked to the actual source. I will make sure everything is unlinked, though. Hmm, there was only one linked publication; isn't that interesting.

I hope these comments are helpful. I have only done a brief read-through of the article, but will do more thorough job in the near future. I will post a full review sometime later next week as I am trying to balance my time on Wikipedia with off-Wiki work, but I thought I should help here and get the ball rolling with reviews. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes very helpful, thank you. Looking forward to seeing more comments. I appreciate you getting the ball rolling. Best to you as well. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for responding to everything. I have added some responses of my own and I will likely get back to this FAC for a full review later this week. Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you, too. I think that I've addressed everything and responded to your comments above. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. I just have one quick clarification question, and once that is cleared up, I will be more than happy to support. Would the perceived Kwan rivalry be notable enough to mention in the lead? It may not be, but I was curious since a decent-sized portion of this article talks about Kwan in some capacity while Johnny Weir gets a mention in the lead despite not being mentioned nearly as much. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. I went ahead and added a line about the rivalry in the lead. Thanks for your support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, done. Wish I had more images to alt text. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from ErnestKrause

Its nice to see this article coming forward as a FAC nomination. It has been at GA level for quite some time now and has served as an example for other figure skating biographies to follow. One topic of interest for this article is her role as producer for the Meddling documentary which has received some good reviews; can something more be added about this 4-part series since Wikipedia does not have a separate article for it? Another question involves the general outline for the biography which you are using for this article; it looks a little different that other Wikipedia biographies (for the non-skating majority of biographies) in that a section on Skating technique appears halfway through the biography sections, as opposed to coming after all the collected biography sections. Should the biography sections be grouped together, and then followed by the various themes sections which normally come later in most other Wikipedia biographies? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Ernest. Yah I've been a bit busy IRL for the last couple of years, so I've neglected editing, but that period has ended for now, so I've been able to do a deep dive back into it this summer. Also, to be honest, I'm a little anxious about bringing a figure skating bio here, especially one who's as polarizing as Lipinski can be. I'm glad to hear that you believe that this bio can be a model for others. I suppose I could add more content about Meddling, if I can find some serious reviews. I will go research and see what I can do. For figure skater bios, it's customary to place Skating technique/style and Influence sections after the sections about their careers; see WP:FS STYLE. I think it makes sense to make a clear separation of a skater's skating career and life post-skating because they're often very different and have little to do with figure skating. That's not the case for Lipinski, of course, but she seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Endometriosis is mentioned in the article with her as a spokesperson for it and its symptoms listed on Wikipedia's medical article as "pelvic pain, heavy periods, pain with bowel movements, and infertility". Can something be added on this in her biography article here? Has she spoken about her type of experiences and pain management; does she and her husband speak about options like adoption, etc, are there any RS about these issues since she is a spokesperson for it? Also, the husband might be listed in the infobox as spouse. Regarding you TOC comments and the Skating technique section, then I'm interested if you are ruling out the option for rethinking the biography format for skaters; this may come up with the Hanyu figure skater article since he is transitioning to a professional only career at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

So I was able to find info about Meddling and added it. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find any formal reviews, mostly promotional pieces when Lipinski did some interviews about the series. I think what I added was substantial, though. I added spouse to infobox. The information about endo is pretty much all I was able to find about it, including her reports about her moderate symptoms and pain; there's nothing about fertility issues. About the bio format for figure skaters: again, it seems to be customary for these kinds of articles. Wow, the Hanyu bio is such a complicated article; I so admire those of you who have taken it on. I imagine that eventually, since it's certain that Hanyu's professional career will be as long and illustrious as his amateur one, that there will be a separate article about it. That being said, I support following conventions, but that doesn't mean that the team working on Hanyu's article(s) can't break them if they feel it's necessary. I'll support you guys no matter what you do, even if I disagree with it. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Meddling section looks pretty good now. I've just noticed that Yolo has added a new section of "Professional career" to the Hanyu article at Wikipedia and that she is taking the convention of the Sonia Henni article at Wikipedia to keep the biography sections together, and to make the biography sections come before the discussion of Skating sytle or Coaches themes in the Hanyu article. What do you think? You are setting a type of precedent for figure skating biographies, and it would be of interest to hear your opion on this. Should Wikipedia follow the stardard biography article format for TOC like Hanyu and Sonia Henni, or, take your route here. Separately, can you also confirm for her Personal life section that she has no children with her husband. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Ernest, I think this discussion is probably outside the purview of a discussion here at FAC. However, I've done a cursory look at other skaters' bios and found that this is handled in a variety of ways. Perhaps we need to take it to a vote/discussion at Wikiproject Figure Skating and get a consensus from those of us who work on these bios. Re: the Personal life section: I don't know what you want me to do. I haven't found anything about children, which is why there's nothing about it in this bio. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

There appear to be comments from both Yolo and Henni below which can be used productively. The MOS page for FS you opened two months ago has had virtually no activity on it. If you wish to start the equivalent of a RFC on this, then this would put a 30-day hold on this nomination which I'm not sure will sit well with the FAC coordinators. Do you have any opinion of leaning toward Yolo's comments or Henni's comments? It might be better to discuss it here rather than asking for the equivalent of a 30-day RfC for something that might be more easily discussed here. Are you leaning towards Yolo's comments or Henni's comments? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding review comments below:

(1) Is there sufficient discussion of the new age changes rules made over this summer concerning the sport and Valieva? How does this affect reading Lipinsky and Sonia Henni? How would the Olympics games have changed in Lipinsky's year at the Olympics if she were barred from competing due to her age?

Good question. I'm not sure, though, that this belongs here, although it for sure belongs in Valieva's bio. I haven't seen anything that connects the age change rules that happened in Lipinski's era to this one, or conjectures about what would've happened if she wasn't allowed to compete in 1998. However, I have seen her comments about young female skaters in the sport and how a strong support system is needed for them, and how Valieva unfortunately and tragically didn't have it. There's also discussion in Kestnbaum about the influence of teenage girls on the sport. I'm sure you already know that it was Henie's young age that changed female skaters' costumes and that it helped loosen up the strict injunctions against women skaters, which also belongs in Henie's article. The ISU didn't change the wording from "ladies" to "women" until this year. Sorry for the digression; my point is that it may be something important enough and should be researched more. I'll see what I can do about it.

(2) Infobox could mention that she has no children. This is usually covered in Wikipedia articles for married couples.

Not sure how this is done in an infobox. Could someone do that for me, please?

(3) There were fairly detailed interviews about Lipinsky and Weir taking a strng public position opposing Valieva being allowed to compete at the February 2022 Olympics on at least two different occasions. Does this deserve more comment in this Wikipedia article?

I think I've addressed that before. Although this discussion belongs in Valieva's article, for sure, I'm not sure it belongs here, other than the affect it had on your commentating.

(4) Has Lipinsky made any comments about the new age limits for figure skaters from this summer? What does it mean for the sport if the highest performances in the sport will be made at the junior level rather than the adult level? What has Lipinsky stated on this?

Yes, of course she has. See my response above.

(5) Articles for Hanyu and Tara should be consistent with each other in terms of level of coverage and sequence of covered topics since both articles are at GA level, which Tara nominated now for FAC. Yolo and Henni have already made an FL for Hanyu, and the Hanyu article is relevant here for its TOC since Hanyu has much experience in Ice shows already in his career which were conducted while he was still competing.

Yes, I understand that, but if the research doesn't bear that out, you can't do that. The Hanyu team is able to access a myriad of sources, but for Lipinski, since both her amateur and professional skating careers occurred before the wide use of the internet, there aren't as many sources about her out there. It's also why there aren't as many free images of her to use here. The Hanyu team has been able to create an FL because the sources and content warrants it. That's just not true for Lipinski. If you compare this bio to Johnny Weir, you'll find the same thing, even though they're almost the same age, because Weir's career is later than Lipinski's and after the internet. (Yes, I'm considering submitting Weir's bio to GAN, but that'll require more work and frustrations.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Look forward to seeing your comments and updates. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

After reading your comments below in the other sections, I'm going along with Aoba and Hawkeye in Supporting your nomination. After also reading Yolo's comments, it appears to my reading that you and Yolo are already in 90% agreement about the TOC issue. I've gone ahead and appiled both of your comments to adapting the TOC for the Wikipedia Scott Hamilton biography which you might look at sometime. The five comments I've just added above are optional for you to look at when time allows. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah thanks so much. Also thanks for your willingness to help and for your openmindedness to the discussion here. This bio and others like it will be better because of it. In that same spirit, I will go ahead and address your above comments now. There's so much work to be done on skaters' bios; it's a neglected content gap, for sure. Heck, I'd like to handle Sonia Henie's bio sometime. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

• Should figure skater be linked in the lead sentence?

  Yes, done.

• In the lead, it is noted that she is "the youngest to win an Olympic gold medal". This is ambiguous, and should be elaborated. The body says "Lipinski was the youngest Olympic gold medalist in figure skating history". That is correct, but it passes over her other claim to fame: being the youngest ever in an individual event.

  The lead states, however: "She was, until 2019, the youngest skater to win a U.S. Nationals, the youngest skater to win a World Figure Skating title, and the youngest to win an Olympic gold medal." And the article goes on to state all the individual events in question. If that's not enough, what else should be added?

  Yes but.. she is the youngest ever Olympic gold medalist in an individual event. Winter or Summer. Any country. Any individual event. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I added the phrase "in figure skating history", as it states in the article's body. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• "She was the sixth American woman to win an Olympic gold medal." Should add "in figure skating".

  Ok, done.

• Duplicate links: Richard Callaghan, 1996 U.S. Figure Skating Championships, Sonja Henie, Champions on Ice, Johnny Weir, Scott Hamilton

I can remove them, but for longer articles like this one, I like to include multiple links so that readers can access them if they want to without having to scroll too much elsewhere, or if they're only reading that one section.

• Link Houston Chronicle, Pyeongchang

  Done.

• What's a salchow?

  It's a jump! ;) Added link.

That's all I have. Great effort. Nice to know that being a figure skating champion qualifies you to comment on fashion at the Oscars Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate the feedback. Ha ha, fashion is a big deal in the figure skating world. And hello, we are talking about Tara and Johnny! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

No worries. Moved to support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Hawk! Appreciate it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by Yolo4A4Lo

Thank you for ErnestKrause to mention this nomination to me. I'm excited to see more figure skating article getting FA. The article itself is pretty good already, but it depends a lot with direct quotes from writers and in need of some copy-edit work. So, English is not my native language, but here are some suggestions on diction, grammar etc. Feel free to use them or not. I just managed to read through her competitive career though. Will continue it later.

Addressed comments

the 1997 world champion -> World champion Done. @Yolo4A4Lo: I don't think that this change is actually correct. The event itself is called "the World Championships" or "Worlds", but "world champion" is a casual term and not capitalized (see Collins dictionary for example). Same with "world junior champion" or "world record". It's only capitalized if you write "Worlds champion" or "champion of the Worlds event". Henni147 (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC) @Henni147: I would agree to you if it's on another part of the article or the lead, but this is the first paragraph where we establish their competitive career highlights. You can see in every article on figure skater it's written as "World" Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC) If that's the consens on Wikipedia, then I agree of course. Thanks for clarification. Henni147 (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC) a two time Champions Series Final -> a two-time Done. "She was, until 2019, the youngest skater to win a U.S. Nationals, the youngest skater to win a World Figure Skating title, and the youngest to win an Olympic gold medal in figure skating history." First, I think "Until 2019, she was..." has better flow. Secondly, I looked up previous commentaries and she's the youngest in individual event. I think that needs to be stated clearly. So, "The youngest single skater to become an Olympic, World, and U.S. Nationals champion" if that applies to all three competitions. The order follows the previous statement. The "Until 2019" only applies to Nationals, but I agree that it flows better with the phrase at the beginning of the sentence. I changed it to this: "Until 2019, she was the youngest single skater to win a U.S. Nationals and the youngest to become an Olympic and World champion in figure skating history." I disagree with you about the individual event because when Lipinski was active, there were only individual events; the team event in the Olympics is relatively recent. Plus, no other skater's bio includes it, even after the team event was added to the Olympics. For example, Nathan Chen doesn't state that he won his medals in individual events and states that he "helped" his team win. I meant "individual" as in in single skating, because there's a pairs man who was younger than her, based on here. That's why I added "single skater". Sorry, I was unclear. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC) "Lipinski had a rivalry with fellow skater Michelle Kwan, which was played up by the American press and culminated when Lipinski won the gold medal at the 1998 Olympics. " -> needs comma before "and" Done. "Lipinski, along with sports commentator Terry Gannon and fellow figure skater and good friend Johnny Weir, commentated for skating in two Olympics; they became NBC's primary figure skating commentators in 2013." Which Olympics? And rather than semicolon, I think "before they became" is better. Okay. Hey, I like semi-colons. ;) "At the age of three, she began roller skating; when she was nine years old, she became a national champion in her age group" -> "At the age of three, she began roller skating, and eventually became a national champion in her group when she was nine years old. She began figure skating in the same year, transferring..." Done. "Two years later, in 1993, her father stayed in Texas to support the family and Lipinski and her mother moved back to Delaware..." -> "Two years later, her father stayed in Texas to support the family, while Lipinski and her mother moved back to Delaware..." Done. "When she was 12, she became the youngest athlete to win a gold medal at the 1994 U.S. Olympic Festival[7] and took first place in her first international competition, the Blue Swords in Chemnitz, Germany. According to Cosmopolitan Magazine, the media began to notice Lipinski after Blue Swords in November 1994.[2]" -> "When she was 12, she became the youngest athlete to win a gold medal at the 1994 U.S. Olympic Festival.[7] She then took first place in her first international competition, the Blue Swords in Chemnitz, Germany in November. According to Cosmopolitan Magazine, the media began to notice Lipinski after the competition.[2]" Done. "As a junior skater, she came in fourth place at the 1995 World Junior Figure Skating Championships and with six triples in her long program, second place at the 1995 U.S. Figure Skating Championships.[5][3]" -> "Long program" needs to be changed into "free skate", based on WP:FS STYLE. It’s still used in the whole article. The ref should be sorted, but I couldn't find any mentions of six triples on both articles. Fixed all instances to free skating and removed unsourced info. "After what sports writer E.M. Swift calls a "whirlwind coaching tour" -> "After what sports writer E.M. Swift of Sports Illustrated called a "whirlwind coaching tour". I think it’s necessary to point out the news outlet at first mention Got it. "After what sports writer E.M. Swift calls a "whirlwind coaching tour", when Lipinski and her mother interviewed and Lipinski took sample lessons from figure skating coaches around the country, they hired Richard Callaghan" Shouldn’t it be "where”? CMIIW. No I think "when" is correct. "but her long program, which included seven triple jumps and which Sports Illustrated calls "sparkling", brought her up to 15th place” -> "but her free skate, which included what Sports Illustrated called "sparkling" seven triple jumps, brought her up to 15th place” But Swift calls the free skate sparkling, not the jumps. Got it. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC) "Lipinski and Callaghan spent the next year, as Swift puts it, making her "appear more mature"; she enrolled in ballet classes and hired choreographer Sandra Bezic to, as Swift also reports, 'create programs for Lipinski that expressed delight yet looked adult'." I think the first mention of Swift is enough to indicate all quoted parts are from their writing. I've gotten different directions about that, but I'll follow yours. "In late 1996, she added the triple loop-triple loop combination, which became her signature jump and added technical difficulty to her programs." Needs comma after jump. It's already grammatically correct because the dependent clause follows the independent clause.[2] Oh, I misread it. Got it. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC) "She defeated Kwan, Nationals champion in 1996, who won the short program." I think "the reigning Nationals champion" is better. Done. "Kwan fell twice and landed only four out of seven of her planned triples during her long program." I think "triple jumps" sound more formal. Needs to be uniformed throughout the article as well if changed. I respectfully disagree. Yes it's the sports' lingo, but it's pretty standard for figure skating writers and commentatators to use it. If you insist upon it, though, I'll follow your instructions. I still think it's not so general audience friendly. Especially, since unlike quads, there's no article on triples that you can link to it. But I'll go with consensus. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC) "She was the last skater to perform in the competition's free skating program; she skated cleanly with seven triple jumps, including what writer Ellyn Kestnbaum called 'a history-making triple loop-triple-loop combination' and came in first place." Need to change "in the competition's free skating program" into "in the free skate segment of the competition", according to MOS. Needs a comma before and. But the MOS leaves the use of "free skate" vs. "free skating" up to the discretion of the editor. Do you think I be consistent? Added comma. The thing is the "free skating program" here actually refers to the competition segment rather than the program, like other instances it's used in the article. So, if you still want to use "free skating", the right words would be"the competition's free skating segment". Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC) I guess it's because in figure skating, "programs" and "competition segments" are used interchangeably. It's common to say something like, "Lipinski was in first place after the short program" or "She came in sixth in the free skate and tenth overall." That's true across all figure skating disciplines, probably because your suggestion, while it's technically correct, doesn't flow easily in writing or in speech. Thus, I respectfully request that we use the conventional language. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC) "She was a month younger than the previous record holder, Sonja Henie from Norway, when Henie won the first of ten World Championships in 1927" Changed "the" to "her". Thanks. More later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC) "Lipinski completed seven triple jumps, as she had done at the U.S. Nationals and the Champion Series final and finished in first place after the short program.” Champion Series final -> Champion Series Final. Needs comma after final. Done. axel -> Axel. Throughout the article. Got em, thanks for the catch. According to 6.0 system, the right term is "presentation mark" not "artistry mark". It needs to changed and linked to the article at first mention. Fixed. The 6.0 system isn't mentioned anywhere here, so not sure what you want me to do. I agree with Henni's comment on it below. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC) "included a triple flip and her "signature triple-loop, triple-loop combination"." Doesn’t need double quote. It’s been established the jump is her signature throghout the article. But it's a direct quote from Longman. But why does it have to be direct-quoted though? Like I said, the jump has been established as her signature in the article many times. Two instances before that part, actually, not counting the lead, if it's the "signature" that's deemed notable enough to be direct quoted. I just think it's too much. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC) Understood. Removed direct quote. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC) "Lipinski, Kwan (who was fourth after the short program), and Russian skater Irina Slutskaya..." -> "Lipinski, Kwan - who was fourth after the short program, and Russian skater Irina Slutskaya...” I think you want me to replace the paranthetical with dashes. Shouldn't there be dashes before and after the phrase? I didn't put the dash after because there's already a comma there, but you can replace the comma with a closing dash if you want. Ok, thanks for the explanation. Done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC) "first- and second-place votes" Is that the right way to write that, not "first and second place votes"? CMIIW Yes I believe it's correct. "Longman reports that if two more judges had placed Slutskaya before Lipinski after the free skate, Kwan would have won the competition but instead came in second place." First, "reports" should be in past tense. And it should be "instead of coming in second place". Fixed grammar, thanks for the catch. And I knew that this would come up. You'll notice that I use present tense when quoting or attributing a statement to a source. I do that because my main professor in my graduate program in English has said that for academic writing, that's the correct use. Is that true for encyclopedic writing? If it is, can you (or anyone else) direct me to a policy that collaborates it? I've never seen it. Oh, I found MOS:BLPTENSE. So, we can used present tense for Kestnbaum's book. But since the rest are articles, they should be in past tense. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC) I didn't know about that part of the MOS. Thanks for that! I went through and made changes as needed, I think. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC) "to her routines" should be "into her programs" Changed. "She went into the 1997–1998 season by continuing to add more of what Longman calls "sophistication" to her routines, by improving her artistry, and by taking daily dance classes from Russian ballet teacher Marina Sheffer" -> "She went into the 1997–1998 season by continuing to add more of what Longman calls "sophistication" to her routines; improving her artistry by taking daily dance classes from Russian ballet teacher Marina Sheffer". I think it’s easier to read that way? But it wouldn't be grammatically correct. I removed the commas instead; that might make it easier to read. "At Skate America" -> "At the 1997 Skate America". Make all events uniform would be better. Okay. "Lipinski came in second place after Kwan in both her short program and free skate and took second place over all" -> "...both short program and free skate segment of the competition..." to be more clear for non FS-friendly reader. Got it. There are many occasion of present tense is still used for writers throughout the article, not past tense. Eg. "Kestnbaum calls..." "Longman states..." Also, make sure the indirect quotes are in the proper tense. See my explanation above. "behind French skater Laetitia Hubert, who had not won a major competition since the 1992 World Junior Championships, and who had come in eleventh place at her previous competition" -> "behind French skater Laetitia Hubert, who had not won any major competition since the 1992 World Junior Championships and come in eleventh place at her previous competition" I agree that this phrase needed tightening up, but improved it a little more than your suggestion, to: "...behind French skater Laetitia Hubert, who had not won any major competitions since the 1992 World Junior Championships and who came in eleventh place at her previous competition." "Lipinski was tied as the fourth best-ranked female figure skater in the world coming into the Champion Series Final." I wasn’t into figure skating at that time, but seeing Champion Series is the predecessor of Grand Prix, I think calling it "best-ranked female figure skater in the world" is too much, especially that sentence doesn’t exist in the source. So, I suggest to adapt what the source said.. "Coming into the 1997-98 Champion Series Final, Lipinski was tied for fourth place in the Series standings with Russia’s Maria Butyrskaya." I don't see where this is. Has someone come in and changed it? on third paragraph of 1997–1998 season. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC) @Figureskatingfan : This still needs to be addressed as well. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC) @Yolo4A4Lo, got it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC) "She won..." -> "She won the competition..." Done. "the finals" -> "the Finals" Done. "Mike Penner, a writer from the L.A. Times, reports that both Lipinski and Callaghan were concerned about what they considered unfair treatment by the judges at the Champion Series that season, who gave her lower technical scores than the previous season, as low as 5.3, for "an incorrectly launched lutz"." -> "Mike Penner, a writer from the L.A. Times, reported that both Lipinski and Callaghan had been concerned about what they considered unfair treatment by the judges during the Champion Series that season, who gave her lower technical scores than the previous season, as low as 5.3 for "an incorrectly launched Lutz"." See above for the tense issue. "Lutz" isn't capitalized because it isn't in the source, which is directly quoted. "Callaghan told Penner that the judges told him that Lipinski regularly performed her lutz jumps from the inside edge of her blade instead of from the correct outside edge, something skaters called ‘the flutz’." -> "Callaghan told Penner that the judges had told him that Lipinski regularly performed her Lutz jumps from the inside edge of her blade instead of the correct outside edge, something skaters called "the flutz"." Fixed capitalization because it wasn't a direct quote. ;) "a difficult triple toe loop-half loop-triple toe combination sequence". this is not direct quote, so should we adapt the new terms? "tripe toe loop-Euler-tripe toe". Either way, link the Euler article. And, is it a combination or sequence? Since two years ago iirc, only combination ends with Axels that are called sequence now. Whichever it is, it can’t be both. Removed "sequence" because you're right; it wasn't called a sequence back then. Linked to Euler jump. "Lipinski's free skating program, with her triple loop-triple loop combination and seven triple jumps total, was the most technically difficult program in Olympic history." add "at that time" Added "up to that time." "As Kestnbaum put it, Lipinski's jumps were not as big as Kwan's and her jump takeoffs "were not always ideal", but her landings were clean and according also to Kestnbaum, seemed to increase in speed as she came out of them." -> "As Kestnbaum put it, Lipinski's jumps were not as big as Kwan's and her jump takeoffs "were not always ideal", but her landings were clean and ‘seemed to increase in speed as she came out of them’." Done. "Lipinski was the youngest Olympic gold medalist in figure skating history" -> According List of Olympic medalists in figure skating by age, it should be "the youngest individual Olympic gold medalist" As I state above, I disagree with adding the word "individual." "It was the first time singles skaters from the same country won the gold and silver medals at the Olympics since Americans Tenley Albright and Carol Heiss did it in 1956." -> "single skaters" Fixed. User:Yolo4A4Lo, I believe that I've addressed your comments, other than the ones I disagreed with. ;) Thanks for your thoroughness. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC) - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 10:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC) Comment for Yolo: Could you comment on your new section on Professional career at Hanyu, in comparison to this Tara Lipinski article. In the Hanyu article you placed the Professional career section before the Skating technique section, however, the Tara Lipinski article placed it after that section. Is there is reason for this, or does one have advantages to offer? ErnestKrause (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC) I just checked and it's after Competitive Career on Lipinski's? Unless I just missed it's recently moved. Anyway, I have moved my answer to FS MOS section Henni just made. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC) Ernest, the Professional career section is after the large Competitive career section in Lipinski's article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC) Everyone, I think that this discussion doesn't belong here in this FAC. So as this article's nominator, I request that it be removed and be moved to the FS MOS talk page as Yolo suggests below. I can make the move myself if you like. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC) As I've explained above, there are significant advantages to commenting on this here and now, rather than starting the equivalent of a 30-day RFC process on this. What do you think of Yolo's ideas, and what do you think of Henni's ideas? Are you supporting either one of them, or do you prefer another approach? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC) I see that Yolo moved the discussion as per my request, which I appreciate. I'll respond to the RFC and FS bios structure issues below, under Henni's comments. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC) More comments by Yolo4A4Lo Got a lot of job desk today so I didn't have many time to read through it. So, only this so far: "According to skater Scott Hamilton, Lipinski "took an enormous amount of heat" for turning professional. He reported that USA Today criticized her decision, stating that she had taken "the easy way out" and compared it to "joining the circus"." Not a mistake, just to give it more variety. Figure skater Scott Hamilton revealed in his book Landing It : My life On and Off The Ice that Lipinski had taken "an enormous amount of heat" for turning professional. He mentioned that USA Today had criticized her decision, stating that she had taken "the easy way out" and compared it to "joining the circus"." Done, much better now, though I kept the word "reported." “The Associated Press (AP) reported that in 1998, Lipinski's net worth, due to many endorsements and book deals, was "possibly as high as $12 million"[37] and also reported that she had signed "an exclusive deal"[40] with CBS to do some acting and to perform in skating shows and non-sanctioned competitions” -> “The Associated Press (AP) reported that in 1998, due to many endorsements and book deals, Lipinski's net worth was "possibly as high as $12 million"[37] and that she had signed "an exclusive deal" with CBS to do some acting and to perform in skating shows and non-sanctioned competitions.[40]“ Done. “She skated in over 300 live shows, including professional team competitions like Ice Wars on CBS. Also on CBS, Lipinski produced and starred in a two-hour special called "Tara Lipinski: From This Moment On". She won every competition she entered during her professional career. After the Olympics, Lipinski toured with Champions on Ice, visiting 90 U.S. cities.[2]" First, the reference cited only supports the 90 U.S. cities Champions on Ice. There’s nothing on the live shows, Ice Wars, the special, and “won every competition”. It does have "Lipinski says she had a long-term contract with CBS for skating specials on-air, and to appear on shows like The Young and the Restless and Touched By an Angel." Those are important information, so I wonder if you can find the source. Secondly, kind of OOT, but if Ice Wars is made-for-TV then the title should be italicized (it’s not on its article) since it’s more a competition TV show rather than an event. Somehow the source for it got lost, or maybe someone came in and added it without a source. At any rate, I'm removed the unsourced content. “which the AP calls "the highlight" of the tour.” -> “which the AP called "the highlight" of the tour.” Fixed. “Also in 1998” -> “In the same year”. Just preference. No problem. “and acted in television shows for the Fox Family Network and Nickelodeon”. Need to link Fox Family to History of Freeform#Fox Family. Got it, thanks. BTW, I wonder if the article needs a filmography section. Judging from her IMDB page, her TV career was pretty long, and I know most of them are cameo, but she was billed second in Ice Angel, so that’s notable enough. Cameo and voice acting are usually listed on filmography table as well. You can refer to MOS:FILMOGRAPHY and WP:FILMOGRAPHY Sorry, I didn't realized the article already has Television Credits section. "Her scores consisted of two 10s, 11 9.9s, and one 9.8" According MOS:NUMERAL, integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words. I suggest to use "eleven 9.9s" so they're all uniformed. You're right, of course. "Lipinski had hip surgery in 2000 at the age of 18, which she believed saved her career." -> "to have saved" Sorry, but I disagree. Your suggestion doesn't flow. But I'll change it if you insist. "Her injury, a torn labrum in her hip, had been misdiagnosed for four or five years, and that it had caused her a great deal of joint pain." -> "Her injury, a torn labrum in her hip, had been misdiagnosed for four or five years and had caused her a great deal of joint pain." Done. "which the National Institutes of Health calls "a dangerous potential side effect of surgery"." Needs past tense Got it, thanks for the catch. That's all for now, more later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC) "which may have occurred before the Nagano Olympics" -> "might have" and "the 1998 Winter Olympics" Both changed. "The surgery, which usually lasted 45 minutes, took 3+1⁄2 hours to complete because she was developing arthritis and because cartilage had grown over the bone." -> "Despite usually lasted 45 minutes, her surgery took 3.5 hours to complete because she was developing arthritis and a cartilage had grown over the bone". Using decimals for consistency Got it. "In 2002, she toured 61 U.S. cities with Stars on Ice. Lipinski retired from skating in 2002." -> "In 2002, Lipinski toured 61 U.S. cities with Stars on Ice then retired from skating." Done, but put comma before "then." "Her skating style was often compared to her "rival" Michelle Kwan's;" I think a full stop is more appropriate to end this sentence since there are many example of the comparison, not just Longman's, in the paragraph. Okay. "Kestnbaum discusses Lipinski's skating technique in her book Culture on Ice: Figure Skating and Cultural Meaning, to illustrate women's and girls' influence on figure skating" No need for a comma there Okay. "and how many in the press criticized the sport, and sometimes even Lipinski herself, for encouraging it." -> "how many people" Done. "In 2009, longing for the "high" she felt as a figure skater" -> "she had felt" Done. "she would call figure skating from studios in the U.S., instead of from the competition venue." -> "she would call figure skating from studios in the U.S. instead of the competition venue." Got it. "After realizing they worked well together and after recognizing what reporter Tom Weir calls their "instant chemistry"" -> "After realizing they worked well together and recognizing what reporter Tom Weir called their "instant chemistry"" Fixed, thanks for the catch. "She stated that she had worked for ten years to commentate during prime time during the Olympics." -> "She stated that she had worked for ten years to realize her dream of commentating during primetime Olympic broadcast." Got it. "They covered the 2022 Winter Olympics, this time remotely from the NBC studies in Stamford, Conneticut, where they had covered events for many years, due to the rise of COVID-19 cases internationally and China's strict COVID-19 protocols, which NBC stated made it "too challenging" to send broadcast teams to Bejing in person." -> "They covered the latter remotely from the NBC studios in Stamford, Connecticut" Got it. "Lipinski and Weir were hired by NBC's Access Hollywood in 2014, to analyze fashion during the red carpet at the Oscars" No need for comma there Fixed. "She served as a "social media, lifestyle, and fashion correspondent"[41] for NBC Sports, including, with Weir, the Beverly Hills Dog Show in 2017,[61] the National Dog Show since 2015,[41] the Kentucky Derby in 2014–2017 and 2018 (as "fashion and lifestyle experts" in 2016),[62] and pre-game coverage for the Super Bowl in 2015 and 2017" -> "She served as a "social media, lifestyle, and fashion correspondent"[41] for various NBC Sports properties, including the Beverly Hills Dog Show (with Weir) in 2017,[61] the National Dog Show since 2015,[41] the Kentucky Derby in 2014–2017 and 2018,[62] and pre-game coverage for the Super Bowl in 2015 and 2017" Since Kentucky Derby has been listed in her NBC profile under the events she covered as "social media, lifestyle, and fashion correspondent", i think it's not necessary to point out her role twice. It barely has any difference anyway. Okay. "They were named what People Magazine calls "culture correspondents"[64] for the 2016 Summer Olympics" -> "They were called "culture correspondents" by People Magazine for the 2016 Summer Olympics" Done. "In the same year" for the second "In 2018" Done. "Lipinski and Weir's commentating style was honest and colorful; they used bantering and avoided what Cosmopolitan called "fluffy, polished performances"." This whole sentence needs to be reworked. The way it's written now makes it seem "honest" and "colorful" as facts, when honest and the "fluffy, polished performances" were taken from direct quotes by Lipinski and "colorful" is from Cosmopolitan. Changed to: "Cosmopolitan considered Lipinski and Weir's commentating style honest and colorful, and said that they used bantering and avoided what the magazine called "fluffy, polished performances"." "They tried to present figure skating in an accessible way to their viewers, keeping the more technical aspects of the sport to a minimum but emphasizing, as Tom Weir put it, its "gossipy nuances"." -> Tom Weir opined that Lipinski and Johnny Weir understood their viewers didn't want a lecture on the technical aspects of the sport, keeping it to a minimum and instead emphasizing its "gosippy nuances" You know what? I like the original version better. First, I hate the word "opined." Second, and no disrespect meant, but the second version is pretentious and talks down to the unititated figure skating fan. So I would like to keep it as is, please. "Dick Button told Olympic reporters he thought Lipinski and Weir were "excellent", but that Lipinski "might talk a little too much", although Tom Weir stated that when skaters were "elegant and error-free", both Lipinski and Weir had "the good sense to stay silent"" -> Need link to Dick Button page. I suggest to close Button's quotes with a full stop and continue with "However, Tom Weir stated that when skaters were "elegant and error-free", both Lipinski and Weir had "the good sense to stay silent"" But Button is linked just one paragraph earlier. For the Goodykoontz part, I suggest: In 2022, media critic Goodykoontz pointed out they were "uncharacteristically quiet" while calling the short program of Kamila Valieva from the Russian Olympic Committee, who was allowed to comp:ete despite failing a drug test prior to the Olympics. Lipinski and Weir chose to simply announce Valieva's jumps and to express their opinions that she should not have been allowed to compete afterwards instead." I disagree slightly with your version. Goodykoontz is introduced a few sentence prior, but I added "media critic" to his description and did this: "Goodykoontz pointed out that Lipinski and Weir were uncharacteristically quiet while calling the short program of Kamila Valieva from the Russian Olympic Committee, who was allowed to compete despite failing a drug test prior to the 2022 Olympics. They chose to simply announce Valieva's jumps and to express their opinions that she should not have been allowed to compete afterwards instead." "Also in 2022, Lipinski and her husband, Todd Kapostasy, a sports producer and documentary director, were co-producers of Meddling: The Olympic Skating Scandal That Shocked the World, the four-part documentary series focusing on the 2002 skating controversy at the Salt Lake City Olympics, which aired on the NBC streaming service Peacock in January 2022." -> "In the same year, Lipinski and her husband, Todd Kapostasy, a sports producer and documentary director, co-produced Meddling: The Olympic Skating Scandal That Shocked the World, a four-part documentary series focusing on the 2002 skating controversy at the Salt Lake City Olympics, which aired on the NBC streaming service Peacock in January 2022." Done. I think I've finished addressing all your comments now. Please let me know what else I should do and thanks for the thorough comments, which were helpful. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC) - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC) More (again) comments by Yolo4A4Lo "Lipinski, who called the series "a deep and responsible look at what happened",[72] says that she and Kapostasy chose to create the series because it was the 20th anniversary of the scandal and because there had been no comprehensive look at what happened." -> "Lipinski, who called the series "a deep and responsible look at what happened",[72] said that she and Kapostasy had chosen to create the series because it had been the 20th anniversary of the scandal and there had been no comprehensive look at what happened." Done. "She also reported that they travelled to Russia, France, and Canada to interview people involved in the scandal" -> Saw Henni's suggestion, and I think we can just go straight to "They traveled to Russia, France, and Canada to interview people involved in the scandal" Okay. "She wore a necklace with a good-luck charm, given to her by her uncle, that said, "Short, but good",[2] as well as a medal of St. Therese, given to her by Rev. Vince Kolo, a Catholic priest from Pittsburgh, during the Olympics." Just prefer "during the Olympics" at the beginning. Got it. "Ann Rogers-Melnick of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports in 2001" Needs past tense Got it, thanks for the catch. "Lipinski stated that although their skating careers had not occurred during the same time periods and as a result, they did not know each other well when they began to work together at the Sochi Olympics" -> " Lipinski stated that although their skating careers had not occurred during the same time periods and, as a result, they did not know each other well when they began to work together at the 2014 Sochi Olympics" Got it. "Both Lipinski and Weir told GQ that they would bring dozens of suitcases to the competitions they announced, and would do their best to wear matching clothes and never the same outfit twice." -> "Both Lipinski and Weir told GQ that they would bring dozens of suitcases to the competitions they announced and do their best to wear matching clothes and never the same outfit twice." Removed comma. She reported that her surgery was successful, that all of her adhesions were removed, and that her recovery was "mainly pain free"” -> “She reported that her surgery was successful, her adhesions were removed, and her recovery was "mainly pain free"” Done. I feel like the paragraph on her belief should be before her wedding. I don’t know if there’s convention on this section, but I feel like for Personal Life, it should start with the subject themselves (either belief, education etc.) then continues with spouse or children, then anyone or anything else. I dunno. I kinda feel the opposite, that you put info about significant others first, before religious/spiritual faith and or tradition. I'm not sure it matters, but I'll switch paragraphs if you tell me to. The entries under Records and achievements should be without a full stop because none of them is a complete sentence. And all need to have the year it happened. Okay, done. @Figureskatingfan:: the full stops still have to be removed. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC) @Yolo4A4Lo, now it'd done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC) The title formatting under Programs still not following Wikipedia MOS. On the Town, Little Women, Samson and Delilah, Speed, The Prince of Tides, Much Ado About Nothing should be in italic. Songs should be with double quotes. etc. The year should be uniformed with the FS MOS, so 1994–95, 1995–96 etc. All n-dashes. Formatting fixed. What I meant about the year is, now under Lipinski's Programs and Competitive highlights, it's "1994–1995", 1995–1996" and so on. Meanwhile, based on the current MOS, it should be "1994–95", 1995–96" and so on. I think it's important to be consistent with that (and also on naming whether it's Competitive highlights/Eligible, Junior and Novice seasons/pre-certain year). Ofc it's a problem for the FS MOS, but it would be nice if we start it from FA and GA like this. @Figureskatingfan:: still need your thoughts on this. I didn't see any changes made except the n-dashes, so Lipinski's would have the tables different from current MOS? Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC) @Yolo4A4Lo, oh I see now that I had misssed that part of your feedback. Fixed now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC) For Results, same problem with the year. Like above, already all n-dashes. I suggest to move the footnote on 6.0 system to right after ”Her presentation marks were mostly 5.7 or 5.8”. Also the “rush” footnote to right after “longing for the "high" she had felt as a figure skater” Okay. “over 300 live shows“ part in the lead needs to be removed/change because it has no source in the body. Right! Good catch! Also, in the body it’s said Lipinski, Weir, and Gannon became the NBC’s primary commentators after Sochi Olympics. Meanwhile, in the lead it says that they “commentated for skating in two Olympics before they became NBC's primary figure skating commentators in 2013.” So the year is not accurate. And what other Olympic they had commented on together? Because the body doesn’t mention anything before Sochi. Another good catch. Corrected to 2014 to parallel what it says in the body. You kept "two Olympics before they became NBC's primary figure skating commentators", but Tara's website says Sochi was the first time she's commentating on the Olympics, so that should be removed and changed into Sochi Olympics instead. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC) Ah I see that I had missed it in the lead; fixed now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Early Edition, Veronica’s Closet, Generation Jets, What’s New Scooby-Doo? are missing from the TV credits. I think voice acting should be indicated as well. I didn't include Early Edition because she was featured in it as a subject. What's New Scooby-Doo is actually Scooby-Doo and Guess Who?, which is there. I wasn't able to find sources for the other two, as well as the voice acting gigs, other than what's already there. No, on What's New Scooby-Doo?, she played a camp counselor named Grey, on Scooby-Doo and Guess Who? she played herself. Based on MOS:FILMOGRAPHY, the format for non-table filmography should be Title (year), role – notes. Cameo or voice acting should be mentioned as note. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC) @Yolo4A4Lo, would you mind providing sources? Like I said, I haven't been able to locate them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC) I found these for What's New Scooby-Doo?. The site has editorial team that checked all the credits, so I think it's trustworthy. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Here a source from the same site that lists more of her credits: [3]. I'll go ahead and add them if I get the okay from you guys regarding its reliability and its appropriateness for a FA. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC) @Figureskatingfan: I personally think it's appropriate. But maybe other editors could also chime in their opinion on this. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC) @Yolo4A4Lo, went ahead and made some additions from the site. I only added the credits where she's playing a role, even if it's Herself, because TV credits sections usually don't include interviews or hosting gigs. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC) @Figureskatingfan:: It's alright. Also, the format should be changed to Title (year), role – notes @Yolo4A4Lo, got it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC) These reference numbers need to be sorted: "[3][2][6]", "[34][30]" Done. I think that’s all from me. I do think the page still needs to be reviewed by editors who are experienced with FAR. I really love the edits you did with Henni, I think it really helps to make the article sounds more encyclopedic. I'll probably do another readthrough after my last comments are addressed. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC) And I think I'm done addressing them, whew! Thanks for your thorough review, I think? ;) No seriously, I appreciate it; it's making this bio all the more better. Looking foward to seeing more from you. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC) Before I take one last look, shouldn't all references that can be archived be archived? Just checking other FAR. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC) @Yolo4A4Lo, Yes, one of the things I did before submitting to FAC is to double-check that all sources were archived and then to archive them if needed. This is an important task to do for all figure skating articles, which I've done this summer as I've updated the ones that I've worked on. Now that I think of it, there should be a notice on the talk pages when that's done; will do so for this one and for the others I've recently updated. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC) @Figureskatingfan:: i assume a bot will add the archive link to the ref when it's dead in the future? Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC) @Yolo4A4Lo, no it's my understanding that the archive link has to be added manually, although a bot will mark it when it's dead. That's why it's always a good idea to check and update links from time to time, especially for figure skating articles and bios. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC) @Figureskatingfan:: You can use Fix dead links on the history page and clicked "Add archives to all non-dead references" to add in archive links to all refs that haven't had one. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Last read-through: "At the age of three, she began roller skating, and eventually became a national champion" I knew this is from my own comment, so I just removed the comma myself. Sorry "which one rival coach said had little elevation" I checked the source and the rival coach gave a quote "you couldn't have put a piece of paper under them". I think it's better to include that as well, because from how it is now, it begs a question how little it is? Including the quote also paints the view that people were crictizing her jumps Changed. "Lipinski opened with a double Axel, and included a triple flip jump" no need for comma Done. "The final results after the free skate were close and the judges were unable" this one needs a comma before and Done. "Kwan's free skate came in first place because she had more first- and second-place votes and Lipinski came in first place" needs a comma before and Added. The subsection should be titled "Pre-Olympic events" instead of Olympic season, because Olympic season is the whole 1997-98 season Already done. "she fell while performing a triple Lutz jump, despite it" no comma before essential information Removed. "Lipinski skated her season's best at the Finals, with a well-executed triple Lutz." no need for comma Removed. "She was awarded 5.8s and 5.9s" needs to change she to Lipinski, since the subject in the previous sentence is Kestnbaum, not her. Done. "one point over Denise Biellmann. who came in second place" a typo there, should be comma Fixed. "because she was developing arthritis and because a cartilage had grown over the bone" double because This is not incorrect. "Her jumps, which Kestnbaum calls "small and in some cases technically flawed", debated in the press in 1997 and 1998." should be "were debated" Added missing word.

I think that's all! Just need to address this and all the missed points I have pinged for you earlier, and I will change my comments to support. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Yolo4A4Lo, whew, I believe I've addressed all your comments. Thanks for your feedback and patience. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work and patience as well. I give you my support, and good luck for the FA. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Henni147

@ErnestKrause: informed me that this article got nominated for FA class, and I'd like to add some comments as well (mainly about skating-specific issues):

Extended content

Agree with Yolo4A4Lo that the article is quite stuffed with direct quotes, and cites many reporters or newspaper writers by name. If we mention people like Kestnbaum, Longman, etc., it must be clear why they are notable people and why their voices carry weight in figure skating. If they don't have a Wikipedia entry, it is questionable if they are notable enough to be cited by name in the prose text. I've worked on decreasing the direct quotes during this FAC. I can go through the bio again if you like. I respectfully disagree about requiring that the individuals quoted in sources need to be notable. There's nothing in WP's notability guidelines that require it. The individuals may not be notable, but most of the publications, agencies, and publishing houses they work with are. Perhaps you mean that the sources need to be reliable? If so, again, most of the sources in this bio are reliable, and if they aren't, I think a case can be made for using them here. @Figureskatingfan: Sorry, my wording was not clear here. I truly meant to further reduce the number of direct quotes (drastically). Especially the paragraph about the 1998 Olympics is a sea of citations at the moment, of which the majority is completely superflous and should be turned into plain prose text or reported speech. In that paragraph you literally have to search for the actual event results and facts, which get lost in the mass of opinions from sportswriters. The summary of a sporting event should be as objective and factual as possible. Here are examples for possible changes: Section Current text Comment Suggestion Early years [...] she placed 22nd after the short program, but her free skating program, which included seven triple jumps and which Sports Illustrated calls "sparkling", brought her up to 15th place. "sparkling" is no essential information that needs a direct quote. [...] she placed 22nd after the short program, but a strong free skate performance, which featured seven triple jumps, brought her up to 15th place. 1996-1997 season Longman reported that Lipinski opened with a double Axel, and included a triple flip jump and her triple loop-triple loop jump combination. This is a fact that can be found in the competition protocols. No need to mention Longman here. Lipinski opened with a double Axel, and included a triple flip jump as well as her triple loop-triple loop jump combination amongst others. 1997-1998 season Lipinski had what writer Rose Minutaglio called "a devastating fall" after attempting a triple flip jump during her short program, which Lipinski called "the lowest point" of her career. It is obvious from the context that the fall was a devastating mistake. Doesn't need a direct quote. In her short program Lipinski fell on a triple flip attempt, which she called "the lowest point" of her career. There are much more direct quotes that should better be turned into plain prose/reported speech, but it would blow this discussion page to list them all up here. However, I think it's clear from the suggestions above, how the amount of direct speech can be easily reduced. @Henni147: thanks for the explanation. I went through the article and cut many direct quotes, as per your suggestion. I made exceptions, however, during the commentaries about Lipinski's skating and broadcast styles because I think that a subjective opinion should be quoted directly. Please let me know if I need to do more. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC) @Figureskatingfan: Yes, the skating career sections look much better now! Thank you very much for the changes. I am not an expert for English language, so it might be best to have another check by someone else, but it looks fine to me now. Good job. "triples" should be changed to "triple jumps", especially at the first appearance in the prose text (Early years section). As I state above, I disagree with this, but since two reviewers have asked for it, I'll make the changes. The toe loop (97/98 section) and flip jump (96/97 section) should be linked at their first appearance in the prose text. Done. The Lutz jump is named after Austrian skater Alois Lutz and must be capitalized. Same goes for the Axel, Salchow, and Euler jump. All fixed now. The "flutz" term can be linked to this section in the Lutz article for more detailed explanation. There are two big issues with the "flutz" take-off, of which the first one could be added as a footnote (for readers who don't have access to the Kestnbaum source): By switching from the correct outside to the wrong inside edge before the take-off, the skater removes the difficulty of counter-rotation and change of curve between the take-off and landing, which characterizes and distinguishes the Lutz from other figure skating jumps. The "flutz" is a morphed jump that is camouflaged as a Lutz, but is technically executed like a flip. If the judges or the technical panel overlook the illegal edge change at the take-off, the skater can basically execute an additional flip jump in the program without being punished. This is particularly beneficial in the current system, where skaters are very limited with jump repetitions and get full jump elements invalidated in some cases. I linked the flutz as per your suggestion. I agree that the current footnote [c] is a lazy way to deal with the problem of not having a good definition of the flutz, not even on Lutz jump. That's an easy fix, though, but unrelated to this article and its FAC, I think. The solution is to add Kestnbaum's definition (as well as the definition of any other source) to the Lutz article. Actually, that'll eventually get done by me, as a part of my current yearly project to update the figure skating articles I've worked on. For now, I think the link is enough for our purposes of improving and promoting this article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC) The term "half loop" (97/98 section) is outdated and should better be changed to "Euler", which is the official term in the current judging system, and it should be linked to its respective article. "Half loop" is a misleading term, as it is not a loop with a half revolution, but a jump that takes off like a loop and lands on the inside edge of the opposite foot, usually placed before a Salchow or flip jump. Hence, the ISU decided to change the name to "Euler" to avoid confusion. Understood. Again, like for the Lutz, the Euler article will eventually get this info. Back when Lipinski was skating, though, the jump was known as the half loop, so I don't think it'd be accurate to use the current terminology. I do think, though, that we should link "half loop" to Euler jump, which has been done and put a footnote in this article explaining that the half loop is now known as the Euler, which I've also done. Yes, I really like your solution with the footnote. Henni147 (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC) In that context the information about the "triple toe loop-half loop-triple toe loop" element (97/98 section) should be checked (Kestnbaum, p. 160). This element is technically impossible to execute, because a toe loop jump cannot take off from the inside edge landing of a Euler. The correct element must be either a "triple toe loop-single loop-triple toe loop" or "triple toe loop-Euler-triple Salchow". My bet is the latter, but I don't have access to the orginal source. Actually, the Salchow is correct. Fixed. In figure skating we distinguish between the terms "jump" and "jump element" (or "jumping pass"). The term "jump" refers either to a solo jump or a specific jump within a combination or sequence. In the women's singles free skate there is a total of 11 jumps distributed across 7 jump elements. A "jump element" can be a solo jump, jump combination, or jump sequence. The last one is usually done with an Axel as the second jump. Here in this article we have: triple-lutz combination jump (97/98 section): this must be "triple Lutz jump" (or something is missing, because a triple Lutz alone is not a combination) The source (Longman) states: "Lipinski, 15, the 1997 world champion, fell on a triple-lutz combination jump, and took second place with an otherwise strong and technically difficult performance." I wonder if he meant that the triple Lutz was a part of the combination jump she fell on. How would you suggest clarifying it? Something like: "Longman stated that during Lipinski's free skate, in "an otherwise strong and technically difficult performance",[22] she fell after performing a triple-Lutz jump." Unless we don't know the exact element she executed, I would definitely go with "triple Lutz jump" and skip the combination term here. Henni147 (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC) triple loop-triple loop combination, her signature jump (lead and 96/97 section): this is not a jump, but a jump element, and should be changed in the prose text. triple toe loop-Euler-triple Salchow sequence (97/98 section): this is not a jump sequence, but a jump combination with an immediate take-off from the landing edge (in a sequence there is either a change of foot, direction or edge between the jumps). Change "sequence" to "combination" here to avoid confusion. Last two comments addressed. In the 96/97 section there is a quotation with "signature triple-loop, triple-loop combination". The notation of the jump element is not correct. It should be "triple loop-triple loop combination". Since it is a direct quote, I don't know if we're allowed to change the punctuation, but in this case the comma is very problematic, as it indicates two separate solo loops instead of a combination. Someone (perhaps me) must have already taken out the comma; the source (Kestnbaum) has the correct designation. 96/97 section: "Her artistic marks were mostly 5.7 or 5.8". There are multiple issues here: Change "artistic mark" to "presentation mark", which is the official term used by the ISU. Already done. Personally, I would refrain from using the terms "artistry" or derivates in encyclopedic articles about figure skating altogether, unless they are part of a direct quote. According to this article by Sandra Loosemore "Olympic-eligible skating is not judged on 'artistry.' The official terminology or the second mark is 'presentation', not 'artistry', and in fact the words 'artistry' or 'artistic impression' do not appear anywhere in the rulebook. Instead, the presentation mark is effectively a second technical mark encompassing several specific criteria explicitly listed in the rules." Already addressed from previous reviewer comments. If we bring up specific marks like 5.7, we have to mention and link the 6.0 judging system somewhere in the article, and also note that 6.0 was the highest possible mark that a judge could reward at that time, so that casual readers have some kind of a reference value. We can include these information either directly in the prose part or place it as a footnote. I agree; I've put it in a footnote [c] as per your suggestion. Footnote looks very good. I like your solution. Henni147 (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC) This article uses the term "score" multiple times, but in the old 6.0 system there were no total scores, only single marks rewarded by the judges. It was not a scoring but a placement system. So we should better use the term "mark" instead of "score" consistently in the article. Okay. In the 97/98 section it says "Lipinski's free skating program, with her triple loop-triple loop combination and seven triple jumps total, was the most technically difficult program in Olympic history." Maybe we should add in a footnote, when and by whom it got surpassed, because it no longer is the most difficult program. Already addressed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC) The skating program and result tables do not meet the current requirements of MOS:DTAB. The tables on the bios page of Yuzuru Hanyu got already adjusted in the way that they meet the requirements, so I'd suggest to use their formatting here as well. So I've update the tables as per your suggestion. Could someone please add the medal colors for me, please? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC) That's all from me as of now, I hope, it's helpful. The article looks very promising and I think that most of the issues listed above can be fixed quickly. Henni147 (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC) Those are nice comments above from Henni. Henni, could you comment on the new section by Yolo in the Hanyu article. Yolo has added a new "Professional career section before the Skating technique section in the Hanyu article, however, the Tara Lipinsky article here places the Professional career section after the Skating technique section. Is there a reason to do this the one way or the other way as you see them side by side? ErnestKrause (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC) There appear to be comments from both Yolo and yourself which can be used productively. The MOS page for FS you opened two months ago has had virtually no activity on it. If we wish to start the equivalent of a RFC on this, then this would put a 30-day hold on this nomination which I'm not sure that will sit well with the FAC coordinators. Do you have any opinion of leaning toward Yolo's comments or the nominator's comments? It might be better to discuss it here rather than asking for the equivalent of a 30-day RfC for something that might be more easily discussed. Are you leaning towards Yolo's comments or the nominator's comments? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC) Ernest, I requested that we move the discussion about the structure of FS bios because it wou've made this FAC too long and because it applies to all bios, not just this one. It's a policy issue, which I feel doesn't belong at an FAC. If I'm wrong about that, perhaps the FAC coordinators can correct me. I also don't see how coming to a conclusion about the structure of FS bios has any bearing on this particular article and on this particular FAC, since there has already been support for passing it, even with its current structure. I agree that this discussion is important, but I disagree that we need to resolve in through an RFC before moving forward with this FAC. If folks here disagree with me, I don't see a reason for continuing with this FAC and I'll remove it. But since you insist that I chime in on the structure issue, I'll do so here briefly and then go into more detail over at the FS MOS: it depends upon the article and it depends upon the skater. For Lipinski's article, I like the current structure because it correctly represents the entirety of her life so far. The way editors have structured Hanyu's article does a good job at representing his life so far. I'm confused about your statement above about the FS MOS: I created it way back in 2020, when it became obvious that we needed a style sheet, and then Henni did some marvelous work expanding upon it back in June 2021. There's been no activity on it since because no one else has added anything else to it. Are you talking about the MOS' talk page? It was created after Henni added to the MOS, also in June 2021. Please explain. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC) Additions from Henni147 Already fixed: Even if the term "lutz" is part of a direct quote, it should be capitalized (with respect to its inventor Alois Lutz). According to MOS:TYPOFIX, small errors can and should be "silently corrected", and I'd say that this type of error belongs into that category. Hmm, that's new to me. The issue here is that there's a wide variety in the punctuation of figure skating elements. For example, the ISU capitalizes all elements, while U.S. Figure Skating capitalizes elements named for people. We at Wikiproject FS has chosen to follow U.S. Figure Skating's convention, which is something that can be discussed and changed by consensus. Perhaps what we can do is, as the above policy recommends, to add {{sic}} for direct quotes? If you take a look at the latest TP Handbook, the ISU uses the same conventions as U.S. Figure Skating: Axel, Salchow, Lutz, and Euler are capitalized, toe loop, loop, and flip not. I suggest to follow that convention as well, and silently correct the capitalization if it's done wrongly in a direct quote. I recognized that the article used the term "combination jump", but it has to be "jump combination" according to the ISU TP Handbook. Ok, done. Also, there is no hyphen between the number of revolutions and jump type. It has to be "triple Lutz" instead of "triple-Lutz". That's accurate; however, the ISU puts hyphens between jump combinations; see their Media Guide, p. 18.[4] Yes, of course. There have to be hyphens between the different jumps in a combination or sequence, but that's a different issue. I was talking about hyphens within a jump name, which have to be removed. I have fixed the two cases in the article already. I have adjusted the competition result table in accordance with the MOS:DTAB guidelines for accessibility. You may have to go back and do it again, sorry; I put in new tables as per previous feedback. The medal colors need to be added, though. ;) The split tables are even better than my solution. Thank you very much for the changes! I also added pictures of Kwan and Weir, so that readers have an image of these two people who played a key role in Lipinski's career. I hope, that's fine. Ya know, I tend to avoid putting images of the non-subject. I get why it may be a good idea to do it in this case, though. I found some additional images of Lipinski, some of her alone and some of her with others (like Weir) on Openverse [5], though. Should we download them to Commons for our use? Yes, that seems to be a good source, but we have to take care of the exact license type when uploading the images to Commons, and check if the license type is suitable for Wikipedia. Not all CC licenses can be used for Wiki articles. Open for discussion: The 1997/98 section is pretty long at the moment. Personally, I'd suggest to divide it into two sub-sections (pre-Olympic events and 1998 Winter Olympics) for better overview. I'm not opposed to long sections, as long as they're not overly-long, but I'm okay about dividing it. I also moved the last two sentences in the first sub-section to the first paragraph of the next, even though I hate short paragraphs. ;) All I have time for now; will do more later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC) Currently, there are many links to competitions with full name like "1996 World Junior Figure Skating Championships". I wonder if they can be shortened via piped link at the second or later mentioning. It's quite exhausting to read, especially in the Early years section. The FS MOS states that for competitions, the custom is to state their full titles the first mention and then shortened/piped subsequent mentions. Comments on specific sentences: 96/97: [...] including what writer Ellyn Kestnbaum calls "a history-making triple loop-triple loop combination" → Why was that 3Lo+3Lo combo at the 1997 U.S. Nationals considered "history-making"? She had already landed it at another event in 1996, no? Already dealt with when removing over-quoting. 96/97: [...] according to the Associated Press, were "in line" with her technical marks. → What does "in line" mean here exactly? That the marks for tech and presentation were within the same numerical range? The wording is unclear to me. Changed to "similar". 97/98: [...] by improving her artistry and by taking daily dance classes → In what way did she improve her "artistry" exactly? Which types of creative technical skills did she specifically work on (carriage/dancing, music translation, program composition, acting/expression...)? "Improving artistry" is a very vague statement that can mean anything and nothing. Personally, I would either look up what she exactly worked on or skip that info altogether. I'm not sure; the sources don't explain. I think the solution is to remove the mention, which I've done.

Overall, the article looks good now. The few notes above may need a quick check, but I give my support for FAC now. Henni147 (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all comments, both from and from the other reviewers. Thanks for the strenuous reviews, all! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Additional comments from Henni147
This won't change my general support for FAC, but here are some more questions and suggestions after second reading:

• Professional career section:
  • "Lipinski's net worth was perhaps $12 million." → maybe change "perhaps" to "estimated"? Sounds more professional.
  • "In August 1998, Lipinski ended her association with Champions on Ice, which she had performed with since 1995, and joined the cast of Stars on Ice in order to expand artistically and to participate in the company's group numbers." → What does "company's group numbers" mean here? Is it the usual group performances with other cast members in the show? And what kind of opportunities did SOI provide for artistic growth that COI didn't? Was it these group numbers only or something else as well?
  • What judging system was used at the World Pro Championships? Was it the same system as 6.0 with judges' mark scale from 0 to 10? I would add a footnote there, so that the mentioned marks have some reference value.
• Broadcasting career section:
  • Maybe place the last paragraph "In 2018 and 2019 [...]" before "According to Houston Chronicle [...]", so that Lipinski's activities as a broadcaster come first, and then the critical reception of her commentary and works. This is not a must, it's just my personal preference as a reader in terms of structure.

Henni147 (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Minor comment from Piotrus

No errors detected in the brief treatment of Polish context, but shouldn't Poland be linked in body? I also do wonder if the term Polish American can be worked into the article and linked from the body. Do we know if she consider herself Polish American? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: We don't link present-day countries. (MOS:OVERLINK) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a rumor that she was nominated for being elected to the Polish-American Sports Hall of Fame circa 2020 though I can't recall if it went through; it was discussed with this image from the Olympics which might be a nice addition to this article if someone can get it into Wikimedia [6]. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I did a cursory google search, but didn't find anything. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is a possible lead for this and another nice Nagano image which might be nice for this article here: [7]. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause, looks like it was just a rumor. There's nothing on the HOF website that states that Lipinsky was inducted. The only two figure skaters on their webpage are Janet Lynn and Elaine Zayak. The image on Twitter is most likely not free. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Leaning oppose Comments from Kavyansh

Leaning to oppose the article's promotion to FA status on criteria 1f.

I am reviewing this version of the article. There are a lot of instances where the article is missing MOS:GEOCOMMA. There are also source to text integrity issues. "the only child of Patricia (née Brozyniak) and oil executive and lawyer Jack Lipinski", where does the source states 'née Brozyniak' and that she was the only child? "Lipinski is Catholic ... that said, 'Short, but good'" appears to be cited to Ref#2, when it should actually be Ref#75, etc.

But what really makes me oppose is the closed paraphrasing issue. While conducting random spot checks, I found many cases where we have closed paraphrasing. Although I tried to ignore even the ones which I felt were cases of borderline WP:LIMITED, a few sentences are almost copy-paste. Sample:

Article: "All four of her grandparents were born in Poland"

Source: "All four of her grandparents were born in Poland" [8].

Article: "They met in May 2015, when Lipinski presented Kapostasy an award at the Sports Emmys."

Source: "The duo had met in May 2015, when Lipinski presented Kapostasy an award at the Sports Emmys" [9].

Article: "... loop-triple loop jump combination and seven triple jumps total, was the most technically difficult program in Olympic history up to that time". [10]

Source: "... another triple-triple combination and seven triple jumps total, was the most technically difficult in Olympic history."

I am open to reconsideration, but would request the coordinators to not promote until another reviewer has taken a comprehensive look at the sources and assured that the source to text integrity and closed paraphrasing issues have been cleared throughout.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Ok, so I fixed the two instances of MOS:GEOCOMMA. I fixed the ref mixups you mention; I'm sure they're the only instances of it. I also randomly tested five different refs for text integrity, but found no problem; I challenge anyone else to do the same and I'm sure they'll get similar results. I looked up your same version on Earwig [11], which had it at almost 34% but found "violation unlikely." I went through and changed many of the close paraphrasing, so Earwig now has it at 24.5% [12], also unlikely. I can change more if you like. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh Could I ask you to look at the new edits made to deal with this copyvio issue; it looks like the article has made progress on this issue. Separately, if you are now taking more interest in sports articles at Wikipedia, then I've opened a review for Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons which could use a good read and FAC comments from someone with you interests at Wikipedia. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Christine and ErnestKrause, and sorry for the delayed response. Had been really busy IRL. I'm happy to strike the oppose, but would still suggest someone else to take a look. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree about this requirement that another reviewer look at the close paraphrasing. I don't see the need for it, since the issue has obviously been resolved. I would ask that the coordinators take all the supports and the work that's been done as a result of this FAC into account. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

As one of the FAC coordinators, I would request that whoever does the required source review here also do spot-checks. While I do AGF that the close paraphrasing issues have been resolved, it would still be best to verify that. Hog Farm _Talk 21:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Czar

Hi, this might be a source review if I have time, but wanted to ask:

• On the "née Brozyniak", is there really no better source for this? The Am-Pol Eagle looks to be a minor newspaper for this national topic. Given the time period of publication (2014) relative to the article's contents at the time, our 2014 citations fails verification, making this mention in a 2014 regional news column potentially citogenesis. A better source should be easily available. czar 22:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is her mother's maiden name even encyclopedic information? (t · c) buidhe 23:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Good point. For her parents' names, then, the Sports Illustrated source would be okay but there are several books that are even better. Nike Is a Goddess (p. 176) is published by Atlantic Monthly Press and is more reliable as a source than the one currently in place. I was a little surprised not to see more book coverage in this article. Newspapers have contemporaneous facts but books tend often require taking a few steps back from the story, making for better secondary source analysis. Gale would probably have relevant biographies here too—I'll take a peek later. czar 00:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do is to remove the offending content about Lipinski's parents' names, so that's what I've done. Regarding the dependence upon magazines and newspapers over books, this article is about an American athlete, so most of the information written about Lipinski will be in magazines and newspapers. There are fewer well-written books about female figure skaters and the ones that are tend to be for a juvenile audience. In other words, books aren't always more reliable than other sources just because they're books. Also, if you look at other bios about athletes, even contemporary and well-known athletes, you'll find that they also use more newspaper and magazine articles than books. For example, Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons, which just passed its FAC and which I admit is much longer and complicated than this one, also uses fewer books, and in Japanese for that matter.

• What makes Golden Skate (goldenskate.com) a reliable source? From the site itself it looks like a community site without usual hallmarks of fact-checking, editorial background (no background page), or industry reputation, but perhaps I'm missing something. czar 00:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Golden Skate is a well-respected website about figure skating and one of the oldest news source about the sport. They conduct interviews and report on all competitions, even during non-Olympics years, when major news organizations don't tend to report on figure skating, especially in the U.S. WikiProject Figure Skating okays its use; see WP:FS STYLE. The information the Golden Skate website supports can't be found anywhere else, so I chose to include it for comprehensiveness sake. Again, Hanyu's FA also uses it.

This is a forum post—it does not have any hallmarks of reliability. Apart from your writing of WP:FS STYLE, I have not seen a discussion of how such a source would meet the FAC criterion of a "high-quality" reliable source for FA purposes. The reviewer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons/archive1#Source review – pass raised the same issue. Especially if this nomination is meant to be a precedent for this source, it seems even more important that there be either a WP:RSN discussion or further input from FAC participants. czar 03:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes it's a forum post, but it's the only place to find the information it supports, the music used in Lipinski's programs. Those forum posts are more reliable than a lot of mainstream sources that report on figure skating, especially the music used in programs. The music skaters use for each program isn't something that's normally reported on in the press. Also, the reason FS WikiProject hasn't had a discussion about the reliability and suitability of Golden Skate because its members, all familiar with the sport of figure skating, agree that it's an appropriate source, so there's no need to debate it. And yes the reviewer at Hanyu's FAC brought it up and obviously accepted the nominator's explanation, which is the same explanation I gave here. Therefore, I don't think it's necessary to bother the folks at RSN with a pointless discussion those of us who edit FS articles already agree about. I also think that in the case of bios about figure skaters, Golden Skate is an appropriate source to use and satisfies the FA criteria. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

A forum post is not high-quality RS period. The answer to most questions that start with, "I know X is a questionable source, but it's the only one that says Y" is "if Y is only covered in this one sketchy source, it probably does not belong in the encyclopedia". (t · c) buidhe 04:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe, you make a valid point, but exceptions can be made, even in FAs, if there's a strong enough case for include sources like Golden Skate and the other source also mentioned. I ask, though: Why is Golden Skate acceptable for the Hanyu FAC reviewers and not here? Is there some kind of double standard for this bio? It seemed like the reviewers AGF regarding the sources the Hanyu article uses, even though many of them of them are in Japanese. It also seems that the reviewers are AGF that the nominators' claim that the translations of those sources are valid. I agree with following that AGF, but why is that this FAC hasn't benefitted from that same kind of AGF? I don't necessarily expect any answers to my questions, but these points need to be raised. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of any case where user generated content would be an acceptable source, except for WP:ABOUTSELF which does not apply in this case. (t · c) buidhe 17:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

To the questions: The Hanyu reviewer (@FrB.TG) raised the same concern, as I had mentioned. (Even if he didn't raise it, a single FAC doesn't alone create a sourcing precedent.) WP:AGF is about assumption of intent, not assuming that a source is beyond reproach. Everyone assumes that the source was added in good faith, but the point of a featured article review is to ask, if there ever was a place to ask, whether a forum post is a high-quality source, as that is itself the featured article criteria. czar 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Same for TheTVDB—isn't this user-generated? czar 00:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, it's used for comprehensiveness. Also, a previous reviewer (see Yolo's comments above) directed me to use it for Lipinski's TV credits.

It appears similar to IMDB, which is similarly not seen as a reliable source, nevertheless a high-quality reliable source for FAC purposes czar 03:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to keep it in, if I may. There's obviously a conflict between reviewers here. User:Yolo4A4Lo, can you chime in here? Should we follow your recommendations to include the TVDB info, or remove it as Czar seems to request? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

UGC is not acceptable source at FAC )or anywhere else). If it's not in a reliable source, it is not required for comprehensiveness. (t · c) buidhe 04:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• The text attributes "According to Kestnbaum" without explaining who she is or why she's being cited. czar 02:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Added identifying information.

• "Swift, pp. 30-31" There are multiple works by Swift cited so these citations need to be more specific. The {{sfn}} template works great for this purpose and defaults to surname and year of publication. (The other short footnotes should match the format. czar 02:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I know about the template mentioned and made a choice not to use it because it'd only be for two sources, Swift and Kestnbaum. It was an editorial choice and doesn't affect the article's qualifications towards FA. The other Swift refs are all from web-based magazines and newspapers, which is still very clear.

Citation templates are not required but clarifying the Swift short footnotes when there are several Swift sources cited is uncontroversially needed for clarity. czar 03:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes but the FA criteria doesn't state that we have to use a specfic citation technique. I disagree that it's inconsistent and unclear, but I'll go ahead and change it as per your request. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The citation technique is up to you—I only asked to clarify the ambiguity for the reader. Looks like some are using 1997 and some are using 1997a so they're referring to different citations. Is that intentional or a typo? czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not a typo; they're two different sources published in the same year, 1997, and was generated by Visual Editor when I tried to differentiate them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Are [[Special:PermanentLink/1117784935#cite_note-FOOTNOTESwift1997a30-31-5|"Swift 1997a, p. 30-31." and "Swift 1997, p. 30." referring to page 30 of the same source? "1997a" and "1997" represent different sources (if you click them), but I imagine they're both referring to 1997a? czar 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Consistency check: It's unclear why some citations list the periodical's location ("The Tennessean. Nashville, Tennessee.") and others do not. Same goes for other redundant parameters ("ET online.com. Entertainment Tonight." and "AP News. Associated Press.") The formatting should be checked for consistency. Wikilinking is an easy way to identify a parameter without needing extra citation parameters, but I did see the above discussion with Aoba. czar 02:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Another editorial choice. I included locations for lesser known sources, or if the location was in their titles, like the NYT. Again, this has nothing to do with this article fulfilling FA criteria.

Citation consistency is a FAC criterion. In the case of The Tennessean, the location is in its title. If your editorial choice is that you don't need the location to reduce redundancy, then the same should apply to the AP News example. czar 03:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

That's because the AP (Associated Press) is a national news organization and isn't tied to a specific location, like the Tennessean or the NYT or the Los Angeles Times. But I added it anyway. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "New York" needs to be added to the Associated Press citations. I was saying that "AP News. Associated Press." is redundant and can just be either. czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Consistency check: The infobox says she trained in Newark, Delaware, but does not mention Newark in the article. The article says she trained in Houston but does not say so in the infobox. czar 02:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The article does state, however, that Lipinski trained at the University of Delaware, which is in Newark. I added it to the text, anyway.

And about Houston? czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The text states that Lipinski and her mother moved to Bloomfield Hills and that she trained at the Detroit Skating Club. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, no issues with Detroit. The article says she trained in Houston too, but that is not reflected in the infobox. My question was why include one but not the other? czar 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• WP:RSP suggests that Cosmopolitan is situational, to be used depending on its context. Why is it the best source for this info in this FA? czar 02:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The policy also states that it should be determined on a case-by-case basis. In this case, Cosmo reports on lifestyle stories, and the content it supports here is an interview with a celebrity and sports figure, so it should be acceptable.

• Footnote c is helpful for explaining competition scoring but out of curiosity, has there been prior project consideration for creating a sidebar that would explain it? I imagine it would be needed in almost any competitor's article to explain the scoring concept for a general audience. czar 03:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

But that's not the convention for any sports article. There are other articles that explain scoring in figure skating, just as I'm sure there are articles that explain the scoring in other sports articles. The Hanyu article mentioned above didn't need it to pass its FAC. There's a link about the 6.0 system, which is up-to-date because I recently rewrote and update it, that readers can read if they want to know more. At the same time, though, it's true that there's a need for someone to improve the ISU Judging System and it's on my to-do list, but that should have no bearing on this FAC because Lipinski didn't skate under it.

I think it's clear from the question that this was a curiosity and never had bearing on the FAC criteria. czar

Source review from Czar

below footnote #s are from Special:PermanentLink/1115157508

Huh?

When the footnotes below are edited, they will no longer be "fn 74" so I linked the version that I used as the ref number reference. czar 03:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• fn 74: Forbes stated that Meddling "uniquely takes a deep dive" The source does not mention Forbes at all, nor the quoted parts.

The ref name was mislabelled. Fixed.

• fn 74 close paraphrasing:
  • source: "Lipinski and Kapostasy traveled to Russia, France and Canada to interview people connected to the scandal, including Marie-Reine Le Gougne, who hasn’t spoken to American media in two decades."
  • Wikipedia: "They travelled to Russia, France, and Canada to interview people involved in the scandal, including Marie-Reine Le Gougne, the French judge at its center, who had not spoken to anyone from the American media for 20 years."

Changed to "They interviewed people in Russia, France, and Canada who were involved in the scandal, including Marie-Reine Le Gougne, the French judge at its center, who had not spoken to anyone from the American media for 20 years."

That they interviewed the judge does not appear material to Lipinski's biography, so I've pared it down per my below comment. czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• fn 72: Checks (But why do we need to cite Lipinski's description of the documentary? Are there no secondary sources?)

No there are not. This source was the best I could find for a minor documentary that aired on a minor streaming service.

Here is an AP News article. There are quite a few source options in terms of covering the basics. And if this truly is a "minor documentary", then it probably doesn't warrant four sentences of coverage, compared with the rest of the article. czar 03:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Also it's still unclear why we need to quote Lipinski's opinion that her documentary was a "deep and responsible look" – this is something a general reader would assume about any documentary. Same goes for the redundant USA Today quote later in the paragraph that the documentary is "a deep look". czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm quoting the sources. The insinuation is that Lipinski and USA Today agree that it's a deep look. It would be conjecture to state something like "USA Today agrees with Lipinski", so the current wording leaves that to the reader. And um, documentaries don't necessarily look at their subjects responsibly. Again, it's what the source states. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• fn 71: E! News is NBC-affiliated—is there no other secondary source coverage of this documentary?

Again no, for the above reason.

This source and the Forbes source below are referencing basic descriptive details about the documentary. I don't see what they're offering that, say, Oxygen (used in the article) or USA Today provide and from a higher quality source. czar 03:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

So why is Oxygen okay to use as a source and not E! News, when they're both basically entertainment sources? The Forbes source has already been removed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned E! because it was NBC-affiliated and publishing about an NBC documentary. But yes agreed that E! and Oxygen.com (already used in the article) don't necessarily have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This said, I wasn't going to press that. czar 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• fn 70: WP:FORBESCONTRIBUTORs are unreliable for statements of fact

I disagree; the source's writer, Scott King, is an expert in the field of entertainment. Hanyu's FA also uses Forbes as a source.

That Forbes contributors are not reliable for statements of fact has been long established (per that link), so this isn't the place to rehash that topic. There should be plenty of other sources available for these statements if they are noteworthy. czar 03:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, not really. But I removed the Forbes reference and tried to recreate the same content as per your insistance. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

It's been discussed over a dozen times at RSN. czar 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• fn 69: aired on Chicken Soup for the Soul Studios Hm, how can this air on a production company? From the source, it looks like it aired on the Crackle streaming service?

Changed to: "...produced by"

• fn 4 close paraphrasing – I think there's less to help with this one but at least the sentences could have been mixed:
  • source: "In June 2017, and after two years of dating, Lipinski tied the knot with sports producer Todd Kapostasy .... The duo had met in May 2015, when Lipinski presented Kapostasy an award at the Sports Emmys."
  • Wikipedia: "In June 2017, after two years of dating, Lipinski married sports producer Todd Kapostasy. They met in May 2015, at the Sports Emmys, when Lipinski presented Kapostasy an award."

I think it's fine too, so keeping as is.

Edited czar 17:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• fn 4: not seeing mention of Saint Therese, Catholicism, nevertheless Lipinski crediting her with her win, or any mention of her hip surgery; only checks for the "short, but good" quote

Changed to make the referencing more clear.

This source is 20 years old, so it would be more accurate to say that at the time of her Olympic win, she had a devotion to St. Therese rather than implying that it continued over the last 20 years (unless we have such a source). The article also doesn't say she is Catholic. If it's implied in the source, we could similarly imply it in the article. czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I changed the wording and removed the conjecture that Lipinski's still Catholic. You're right; there isn't anything more recent that supports it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Didn't see this edited so did so here czar 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

This is just two paragraphs I chose at random. Has a nominating editor gone through every citation in the article already? I would expect to find more of these if not. czar 03:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

And I would expect that they would not, or at least not enough of an issue for this article to not pass to FA. This article, for some reason, has been through a level of scruntity I've never experienced in an FAC, but I've gone through the process because Lipinski, an important figure (har-har) in figure skating, deserves to have her WP bio be an FA. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Is your scrutiny comment in reference to this source review or to the other reviews above? If the former, I'm surprised to hear it and would be happy to end my review here if you'd prefer another source review. I think my comments have been exceedingly fair given the number of referencing errors found in a single paragraph. This is exactly the standard why FA-quality candidates have their sources reviewed and spot-checked. czar 03:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Czar, at any rate, I've addressed the feedback in your responses. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I've been reading the comments from Czar and it would be helpful if he could mark which of the comments have been fully addressed by Christine in his list and which comments are unaddressed in his list above. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I can strike addressed citations but part of the point is that the issues were not isolated. Also some of the threads above are discussions so they won't be marked as "done". czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The footnote #s below are from this version of the article, per above

• fn 55: "instant chemistry" is a quote from Lipinski, not the reporter; also any connection between the reporter Tom Weir and the figure skater Johnny Weir? Both are introduced in the same paragraph so it is a coincidence worth acknowledging or recasting around.

Fixed attribution. I respectfully disagree that it's important enough to do anything about. Johnny is mentioned in the lead, anyway.

• fn 54: The sentence order currently implies that they were in Sochi when Lipinkski and Weir had the realization that they work well together, and then made a change on the fly. The GQ interview (fn 54) says it was in the lead up to Sochi. Optional but that part about their first connection could be sourced to just GQ without any loss in quality.

Removed that it happened in Sept. 2014 when it clearly did not.

• No action required: The Bleacher Report should generally be replaced as a low-quality source known for open blogging, but the byline does note that Tom Weird had covered multiple Olympics for USA Today, so I think okay to keep if the only place these contents are cited, but otherwise not a high-quality source

• fn 65: What is this source's connection to the text? Looks like it's meant to be attached to the Kentucky Derby claim instead, if that sentence needs more references

Moved ref to correct place after the Derby sentence.

• fn 11: She was the first woman to complete the jump combination in competition. This is an extraordinary claim that deserves a source farther removed than Lipinski's own op-ed. Neither the op-ed (fn 11) nor the other source (fn 4, Cosmo) mention it being her signature move.

Removed mention of sig jump in this phrase.

It's also mentioned in Tara Lipinski § Records and achievements and the lede czar 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• fn 40: It's unclear why this opinion is being cited. There are plenty of sources that say flatly that the skating establishment reacted negatively to her going professional. If that's the point of this closing sentence, then a more authoritative source can be cited as a statement of fact without having to attribute an opinion to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette sports column.

Removed sentence.

• fn 48 close paraphrasing:
  • Source: "She then transitioned to NBC and NBC Sports in 2011, where she has covered almost every international skating competition that has aired on the network."
  • Wikipedia: "... transitioned to NBC and NBC Sports in 2011, where she covered almost every international figure skating competition broadcast by the network."

Changed to: "She began commentating for Universal Sports in 2010 and in 2011, began working for NBC and NBC Sports, where she commentated most international figure skating competition broadcasts."

• fn 48: For competitions not broadcast live The source says that "Unlike when she competed, figure skating commentators today call most events from remote studios far away from the live action", which would include live broadcast events. This part can be removed, but alternatively, does this sentence need to be mentioned?

You seem to think that the first part of the source's statement is important so I added it, thusly: "Unlike what was customary for skating commentators when she competed, she would call figure skating from studios in the U.S. instead of at the competition venue." I think it's important to keep the sentence because it describes Lipinski's working conditions. It also goes to the fact that skating commentators were working remotely for several years before they forced to due to COVID. I know no source states that, but with the current situation, I think it's important enough to mention, anyway.

I had asked above if someone familiar with the article can vouch for having gone through each citation before coming to FAC to confirm that the claims match the sources. From the examples above, that doesn't appear to be the case, so it would help for that to happen before continuing with spot checks, given the level of discrepancies exceeding FA guidance. czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Appreciation to Czar for this. As I'm an early supporter for the prose part of this article, I'll note that there are already three supporters for the prose of this article and a pass on the image review. Putting in an added effort for this source review from Czar would put this article into what appears to be realistic reach of moving towards promotion. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I've addressed Czar's most current comments. I agree that this FAC has more than enough supporters, but let me know what else I can do to bring this bio over the finishing line. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I've since went through Czar's comments and re-addressed his comments and addressed what I missed. I will reiterate that this FAC still has more than enough supporters for it to passed to FA. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I think I need to be clear here that I, unfortunately, need to oppose on basic verifiablity issues, namely text–source integrity. Spot checks, such as those above, are meant to rubber stamp that the citation appropriately reflects the contents and repeatedly I have seen and shown that it does not. These spot checks were specifically requested by a FAC coordinator (@Hog Farm) above based on similar issues @Kavyansh.Singh had found in source verification. I have now twice suggested that a nominator or supporter at least review that all citations in the article match their sources before an outside reviewer such as myself is asked to perform another spot check. This is a standard expectation for preparedness before nominating an article for featured status.

That other editors have supported on prose (1a) is great but a separate matter if they have not also reviewed and supported on citation verification (1c). I would encourage those supporters to contribute to the citation verification if they are so willing. czar 18:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator comment - I'm sorry, but given the continued issues with source-text integrity here, I will have to archive this nomination as not sufficiently prepared for FAC. Figureskatingfan - Please make sure these problems are resolved before renominating. Hog Farm _Talk 18:57, 23 October 20

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 18:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

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