Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gurl.com/archive1

Gurl.com

 * Nominator(s): lullabying (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Gurl.com, a website aimed at female teenagers and young adults that was prominent in the 1990s and 2000s. Gurl.com was an influential part of 1990s Internet culture as one of the first online media and communities aimed at young girls. It was mostly known for being a peer resource for teen advice, containing honest discussions about sexuality, body positivity, and adolescence, back when female-oriented media, such as magazines, hardly addressed those issues. In addition, Gurl.com is also credited for Internet activity in girls from generation Y and has been a point of reference in academia regarding behavior of teenage girls on the Internet in the 2000s, such as the topics they discussed and the websites they would create. I started and brought this article to Good status in the past year. Particularly where Internet culture and technology is involved, media and communities aimed at women don't get discussed that often, especially since now most people have moved towards social media. lullabying (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Image review

 * Suggest adding alt text
 * File:Gurl_2011_logo.png: FUR is incomplete - since the article includes two non-free logos there needs to be strong justification. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Alt text added in the infobox. Justification for the 2011 logo is added; please let me know if there is anything I need to fix. lullabying (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Prose review by Anarchyte
Lead
 * - link to Human female sexuality (also link first instance in #Zine).
 * - link to Teen magazine (also link first instance in #History).
 * - thoughts on ? Just an idea. Alternatively, given the article has already established the 1990s, ?
 * - "unconventional" implies a comparison with the mainstream media, no? Could consider cutting the second half.
 * - not sure what this means. What type of contributions? Perhaps provide an example.
 * - link to Opposition to pornography (also link first instance in #Critical reception).

History
 * - or, or simply cut and leave ?
 * As the article notes an "undisclosed amount" for the PriMedia sale, do you have the numbers for any of the other sales? Out of curiosity more than anything, but it might be useful to include, especially for the initial Delia's purchase.
 * As the article notes an "undisclosed amount" for the PriMedia sale, do you have the numbers for any of the other sales? Out of curiosity more than anything, but it might be useful to include, especially for the initial Delia's purchase.

Content
 * - change to . The site is defunct.
 * - Not sure "contributions" is the correct word. My first instinct was that this is supposed to say "section" or something like that.
 * - this sounds consumerist to an onlooker. Maybe cut and only have the other two examples.
 * - repetition of "personality quiz"..
 * - if the source allows,.
 * Consider moving and incorporating the final paragraph of #Zine into #Features. Registration is more of a feature than commentary on the zine portion of the site.
 * Consider moving and incorporating the final paragraph of #Zine into #Features. Registration is more of a feature than commentary on the zine portion of the site.

Will look over the rest later. Anarchyte ( talk ) 12:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Added further comments. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 10:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I modified according to your advice. Regarding "One of Gurl.com's notable contributions was its comics section", I changed it to "One of Gurl.com's notable contributions from its readers was its comics section" because I meant for it to discuss how comics were submitted by readers of the website and became a popular section. Regarding the line about zines, the sources state that Gurlpages were used to host zines but the only topic that was mentioned in detail was about female sexuality. lullabying (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of those. The only other concern I have is that in the Analysis section, the article has quite a few single-word quotations. Phrases like "shaming" can be paraphrased. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 12:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I edited parts of the critical reception and condensed some of the feedback while paraphrasing some others. lullabying (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 04:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator comment
As this nomination has been open for almost a month and has yet to attract a general support, it is liable to be archived within the next couple days if considerable movement towards a consensus to promote does not occur. Hog Farm Talk 18:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the warning. I'll try to get more comments on this. lullabying (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A month further and little sign of a consensus to promote forming. Unless there is significant movement towards this in the next three or four days this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
That's it for a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "as the Internet lacked such communities in the 1990s": This is said in Wikipedia's voice, which means we would need good sourcing for it. It may well be true but I think the intention is to say that this was the opinion of the three women, so perhaps this should read "as they felt the Internet lacked such communities in the 1990s" or something similar.
 * 'The name of the website combined the "g" with the acronym "URL."' I'm not sure what we are trying to communicate with this sentence.  The website name is a pun that refers to both "URL" and "girl"; I think you've phrased it this way because all readers will understand the "girl" but some might not know the "URL" acronym.  I can't see the source you're using, but if it will support it I'd suggest phrasing it like this: 'The name of the website combined "girl" with the internet acronym [or just acronym] "URL".'  The "G" at the start isn't the point.
 * "Odes, Drill, and McDonald continued to work on the website with Delia's": The sources may not specify, but do we know if they were taken on as employees of Delia's, or if Gurl.com continued to exist as a corporate entity, as a subsidiary, with the three women continuing to work for it?
 * I looked through the sources stating as such but it isn't very clear. The Cut states that they worked in Delia's offices, and Women's Wear Daily stated that Rebecca Odes was the creative director of Gurl.com in 2000. lullabying (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK; thanks for checking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Gurl.com was included as property in Delia's online subsidiary, iTurf, in an attempt to launch an e-commerce market targeting Generation Y": what's the significance of "as property"? Was iTurf a subsidiary company that owned Gurl.com?  Or was Gurl.com essentially a brand,  rather than a company, that iTurf was given control of?
 * The sentence was rewritten. lullabying (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "topics such as female sexuality, which was often overlooked in traditional media aimed at teenagers in the 1990s": This is sourced to The Cut, which I don't think is good enough to have this in Wikipedia's voice. As above I suggest either finding another source for "was often overlooked", or changing this to assign it as an opinion.
 * "as the website was intended to be a counterpoint against aspirational fantasy": something can be a "counter against" or a "counterweight against", or a "counterpoint to", but I don't think it can be a "counterpoint against".
 * "Content on the website was organized based on topics, with regular sections named": would this lose anything if it were shortened to "Content on the website was organized into topics such as"?
 * I tried going back through archive.org to find old issues of the zine. Do your sources say how many issues there were?  This, which is dated the some month as the acquisition by Delia's, implies there were only four issues, which is a bit of a surprise as the third was apparently up by January 1997 -- see here.  (And any idea why they were hosted at NYU?  Not important if the sources don't cover it; hosting was a bit Wild-West-ish back then.)
 * No coverage on Gurl.com as a zine can be found as far as I can see, though it was part of online zine culture aimed at girls. lullabying (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If there's no coverage, there's nothing we can do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the content section needs a few dates. For example, from checking a few archive.org pages, it appears the presentation as a zine lasted a year or two past the acquisition by Delia's but not much more than that.  The site lasted twenty-two years, and changed dramatically in that time, but the Content section speaks about the zine topics, features, games, and comics without making it clear what time period these apply to.  Gurlmail.com and Gurlpages.com are given a date range, which is what I'm looking for.  The sources may not let you be very specific, but we should convey whatever we can.  Unfortunately digging through archive.org would be primary research so we can't do that.
 * There isn't a specific date range found for the content in the sources. lullabying (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck. I'll read through again and see if I can think of a way to address this.  It's a pity the sources are so unspecific because the site changed a lot in those 22 years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "While Gurl.com could be accessed without an account, registration was required in order to submit content and participate in the chat room and message board, enforced in order to protect its community": The last clause is a bit disconnected from the rest of the sentence. And if the source permits, can we be less vague than "protect"?  E.g. from harassment, trolls, online predators?
 * The sources that made this statement were vague about who the community was being protected from, and I don't want to make any assumptions. I'll just remove the last part. lullabying (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Early game content satirized beauty standards, such as "Hairy Gurl."' Is "Hairy Gurl" a game, or a character/game content? And as written this says that all the early games satirized beauty standards; is that really the case?
 * Hairy Gurl seems to have been a game. I'll reword the statement into "Some early game content" so as not to make assumptions on all game content posted on the website. lullabying (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "some critics advised the book should be read by older audiences": surely what they meant is that it was not suitable for younger readers, or that it should not be read by younger readers, not that it should be read by older readers?
 * The critical reception section suffers from the A said B problem and needs to be reorganized for a more narrative flow.
 * I reworded the section; please review. lullabying (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that's a big improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "In 2005, scholar Sharon Mazzarella noted that Gurl.com was among the websites that helped girls be creative and empowered, though it was later overshadowed by moral panic surrounding their vulnerability online": what was overshadowed? As written it says that Gurl.com was overshadowed, but I think Mazzarella is probably saying something more general about how websites that encourage girls to interact online were affected by the moral panic, and not talking only about Gurl.com.
 * I reworded the section; please review. lullabying (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "creating a paradox on constructed norms and downplaying individual sexual agency": I think this is a little too academic in its phrasing.
 * I reworded it. lullabying (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "It was named as one of the websites associated with the growth of websites owned by teenage girls, creating a potential advertising market worth $150 billion USD in 2000": I don't follow this. It was never owned by teenage girls, was it?
 * "Duncan and Leander discovered that Gurl.com created spaces of both "resistance and conformity", as people who had websites on Gurlpages both expressed themselves in creative writing yet also listed personal information identifying their demographics and consumer habits": I think "discovered" is the wrong verb; it makes it sound as if their analysis is undoubtedly correct. Suggest rephrasing to use a verb like "described" or "considered".
 * Done. lullabying (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like you didn't change it? This edit changes the verb in a different sentence, from "observed" to "mentioned" -- I would suggest changing that back, since "observed" describes what they did: they observed something in their study. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 08:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "believed"; is that OK? lullabying (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , I think we're not talking about the same sentences -- this edit is what I was trying to suggest. Are you OK with that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I've made a few grammatical edits based on your suggestion and will get back to you on the parts with clarification and rewording. lullabying (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. I've struck the points I see you've addressed so far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding this point: "It was never owned by teenage girls, was it?" This is referring to the fact that Gurl.com inspired many young teenagers to start their own websites as well, particularly through Gurlpages. As for Gurl.com's zine (before it became an online community), the number of issues were not documented. lullabying (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the name of the website: I changed it according to your suggestions but the original source did state that the name originated from the letter "g" with the acronym "URL." lullabying (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've struck a couple more above. I think "mentioned" still isn't right -- a verb like "mention", "note", or "discover" implies that what follows is undoubtedly true.  I think we need a verb that makes it clear this is the opinion of Duncan and Leander.  It looks like you haven't addressed the unstruck points above: some at least I still think need to be addressed, such as the organization of the critical reception section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I changed "noted" to "observed" but I will change it back if it's not clear enough. I reworded Mazzarella's statement about the vulnerability of girls online and the source states that the moral panic is mostly surrounding how the youth were subsceptible to being exposed to harmful messages in online content. I will get to the other stuff once I review the sources. lullabying (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Re: "topics such as female sexuality, which was often overlooked in traditional media aimed at teenagers in the 1990s": This is sourced to The Cut, which I don't think is good enough to have this in Wikipedia's voice. As above I suggest either finding another source for "was often overlooked", or changing this to assign it as an opinion. I reworded this. lullabying (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Re The Cut, I'm not sure the new version really works either. The problem for me is that The Cut is just not a very good source for the assertion; putting the source in the article as you've done eliminates the issue of a general statement that is cited to a weak source, but now we have a statement in the article that is not very useful, because we're explicitly saying  "a poor source said this" and a reader is going to wonder why we bother to mention it.  I would have thought that the statement itself is accurate and could be sourced to something more authoritative.
 * I think the wording of the sentence about Mazzarella is improved, but it's still not clear what "it" refers to in "it was later overshadowed". Does Mazzarella mean that Gurl.com specifically was later overshadowed?  If so I would make it "Gurl.com was later overshadowed" to remove the ambiguity.  If Mazzarella means that the positive effects of "websites that helped girls be creative and empowered" were later overshadowed, I would make it something like "the positive effects of these websites were later overshadowed".  As it stands I can't tell which meaning you intend.
 * Incidentally, I don't know if you're aware, but at FAC it's OK to intersperse your answers to reviewers' comments, replying to each bullet point with an indented comment. You can see this in other FACs at WP:FAC.  You don't have to do it that way -- replying at the bottom as you are doing here is OK, and some prefer to do that -- but I didn't know if you were aware that it was an option.  Some people prefer to do it that way because it makes it easier to see which points have been responded to and which are still outstanding. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've struck a few more points based on the most recent changes. That's taken care of the main issues that were preventing me from supporting.  Do you have any comments on the unstruck points above?  In some cases there may be no change you can make to the article, since I'm asking whether the sources give more information about something, and they may not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Support. All issues I raised have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Support from Vami
Reserving a seat; I will be reviewing the prose, and have no connection to the subject. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  16:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, here we go! – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  17:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * General
 * I believe what is meant by, but I am confused by the construction of this and other sentences stating this. I believe it means "Gurl.com was one of the first major websites aimed at teenage girls", and it was so because of the time of its launch. The construction as is, however, could support the interpretation that it was one of the first in the 1990s itself, which would be correct but perhaps not intended. If my interpretation is correct, I would advise pulling mention the 1990s from the highlighted sentence and.
 * I reworded it; please see if it's good now. lullabying (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Axe "during the 1990s". – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  03:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have done so. lullabying (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is every instance of "internet" capitalized?
 * That's because it's grammatically correct. Even on the article Internet on Wikipedia, every instance of the word is capitalized. lullabying (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * The separation of the purchase of the website by Alloy in 2009 into another sentence implies some special significance. Aside from Alloy being the final owner before the website went under, that doesn't seem to be the case from the article body.
 * Alloy rebranded itself as Defy Media; I will edit the article accordingly to reflect that. lullabying (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This clause would imply that Gurl.com was not itself a 1990s teen magazine. I advise a wording like "Gurl.com distinguished itself from other 1990s teen magazines with its [...]".
 * Gurl.com was not a magazine in the traditionally published sense; it started out as an online zine before it became an online community. lullabying (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What form did this take? Editorials? Artwork?
 * This was elaborated in the body paragraphs, but if needed, I can clarify in the lead as well. lullabying (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have included it in the lead as well. lullabying (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We know from the article body that it was not conservatives criticizing Gurl.com about privacy concerns, but this sentence would suggest that they were.
 * Line was rewritten. lullabying (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * History
 * I think it would be valuable to know when the founders were in high school (which decade(s), preferably), since their upbringing is pretty relevant.
 * I worked on Rebecca Odes as well (full disclaimer: I have no connection to her or Gurl.com) and she was a high school student in the 1980s. Should I include that? lullabying (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, as long as it can be supported by reliable sources. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  03:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. lullabying (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In what capacity?
 * The Cut states they worked in Delia's offices, and Women's Wear Daily stated in 2000 that Odes was credited as the creative director. Other than that not many details are known. lullabying (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the sentence to clarify that they worked out of Delia's offices. This is all the information that was given. lullabying (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * New York state or New York City?
 * Clarified statement as New York City, New York. lullabying (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest "expand" here instead of "build", for "expand their teen-centered properties." PriMedia didn't need to build such properties since they already had Seventeen.
 * Done. lullabying (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:NOW, this should be changed to something like "As of [date of writing], [...]".
 * Done. lullabying (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I will get to them in a bit. lullabying (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


 * lullabying, have all of Vami's comments been addressed? If so, could you pick them to ask them to review your responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Content
 * Should be singular "inspiration".
 * This was fixed a while back, but I neglected to comment to let you know. lullabying (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I recommend "communities for young women" here; when a community takes aim at something, it is hostile to that something. I would also change "other" to "contemporary" here as the former could be read as comparing Gurl.com to all online communities for young women, without respect to time period as is intended here.
 * Done. lullabying (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This doesn't communicate much. It lacks context for relative edginess, and I doubt Gurl.com had crying anime characters and blood splatter decals on the homepage. I would cut this clause and change the sentence to.
 * "Edgy" was used by The Cut as a way to describe Gurl.com's origins as part of counter-culture, because of how they were a counterpart to traditional media. lullabying (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I will also state that that the website was mostly black, used drawings, and also communicated in frank, honest language that was not seen in traditional media. Also, the original logo was a fist with painted nails. lullabying (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * By whom?
 * This source states they're from contributors, so I will correct as such. lullabying (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Recommend cutting "notable" here.
 * I originally put "notable" here because these aren't the only comics that ran on Gurl.com; they're just the ones that have news coverage so they are therefore "notable." lullabying (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel comfortable supporting now, but my above quibbles stand. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  20:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Source review
Spot-checks not included. Version reviewed.
 * WP:SHOUTING in ref. titles (source 2, 8, 13, 14, 38).
 * Fixed. lullabying (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Source 2 lists its author as Eric V Copage (without a full stop after V).
 * Done. lullabying (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Source 2, 10 and 32 need a limited parameter.
 * Done. lullabying (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Some sources list locations but inconsistently. Some do states (e.g. Maryland in ref. 6), but some do countries (e.g. UK in ref. 30). Not sure if it is based on the all available information about their locations but I would remain consistent wherever possible.
 * Done. Please check to see if there are any additional errors. lullabying (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Since we are listing locations, it is necessary to do it for all sources where this information is available (e.g. Palo Alto, California in ref. 35).
 * What if the sources provide more than one location for where it was published? lullabying (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this nom has been open long enough, let's address this on the article talk page post-FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Source 25 - The is not part of the title of Los Angeles Times.
 * Done. lullabying (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Source 28 - what makes Comics Worth Reading a high-quality reliable source?
 * It is listed as a source on WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources, which states lullabying (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Source 48 - not sure I would write the opinion of Salon.com so prominently especially when it's known for being biased.
 * WP:SALON.COM states that in-line attributions must be stated when used as a source. lullabying (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Source 66 needs subscription. FrB.TG (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. lullabying (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * FrB.TG, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , I see done marked under most of my concerns but some are left unanswered so waiting for those. FrB.TG (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. User:Lullabying, could you address these please? (And could you not use the "done" template.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Lullabying, could you address the outstanding oints as a matter of urgency please? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Anarchyte and User:Lullabying, have you read the instructions at WP:FAC? This nomination is filled with templates that shouldn't be used at FAC or FAR. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Did you mean to ping me, ma'am? Every one of my bullet-points thus far uses Template:Tq. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  23:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I've swapped them for their respective colour templates. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 04:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , FYI, tq is one of the templates that should not be used at FAC, per the instructions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Noted; I've already made the switch to Template:Green. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  09:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ should also not be used, also per the instructions. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support for Yolo4A4Lo
Hi, I really like this article and found the subject interesting. I have some of comments though: - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weinstein's photo caption should be "pictured in 2017"
 * "Gurl.com drew inspiration from teen magazines and its initial launch used a zine format." needs comma after magazines
 * Awards table needs caption and scope row and col for accessibility per WP:DTT.
 * Source 7, 28, 34. Name of publications need to be linked so it's uniformed with other sources.


 * Thank you for the comments. I did everything requested. lullabying (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Great. Changed my comments to support. I found the article very informative. If you have time and interested, maybe you could check out our FAC on Yuzuru Hanyu here? We need fresh perspective as many as we can. Thank you. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)