Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Washington Redskins name controversy/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2017 [1].

---

Washington Redskins name controversy

Nominator(s): WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the ongoing controversy regarding the name and logo of the Washington NFL team. The article has been a GA for more that two years and been remarkably stable. The only issue may be that it pushes the boundary with regard to length. WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Images appear to be appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Brief comments

I was drawn to the article by its title – it looks interesting. I've only had time for a fairly cursory glance at the article; whether I'll have time to enlarge later, I don't know, but I'm sure my esteemed colleague Wehwalt will have things to say. Anyway, thus far:

• There are several paragraphs that end with uncited statements:

• "Controversy" section, para 4
• "Native American advocates..." section, paras 1 and 3
• "Alternative Native American opinion..." section, para 3
• "Other teams that use the name..." section, paras 2 and 3

• There are MoS capitalization issues in the section title "Alternative Native American Opinion In Support of Redskins Name". O, I, S and N should be in lower case
• Hatnotes should be placed at head, not tail, of a section.

I'll keep an eye open. Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I will, once I finish up my other commitments.Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I have addressed the bullet-point items above.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The "Responses to the controversy" preamble still ends without a citation. I think the answer is to shift citations 121, 122 and 123 to the end of the sentence. Also, the hatnote in this section is still misplaced. Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I have moved the last hatnote, although I disagree with the strict application of the guideline on hatnote placement. Not all links to related articles expand directly upon the topic of a section, falling neither into "Main" nor "Further Information" categories. Placing a "See also" links at the end of a section indicates to me that the article is only distantly related to the section topic. "Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation" (OAF) is such an article, which was created as a separate article by an American University class project, over my objection that the OAF was not sufficiently noteworthy to be more that a subsection in the main article. It was a "response to the controversy" by the team owner, but placing it at the top of any section gives it undue weight.

I am not aware of a guideline that paragraphs must end with a citation. The sentence is amply cited, three refs being place proximate to the information being supported, the opinions of individual commentators. Moving the citations to the end of the sentence removes this visual connection.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It is arguable whether inserting multiple citations within a sentence is helpful or detrimental; mostly, citations are placed at sentence ends. I'm sure, also, you'll find that even without specific guidelines, it's been invariable FAC practice for some time to require that paragraphs end with a citation. I can't recall a recent promotion where this wasn't the case, and whatever you think personally I think you'd be wise to accept general FAC norms. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I have rewritten the sentence, splitting it into two and placing the citations at the end of each. These statements of conservative opinion bear a lot of weight in balancing the article, so I am more interested in avoiding bias and OR than placement of citations. I had thought that placement of refs immediately after the name of each author emphasized the individual attribution of the content, but perhaps this is to subtle for WP.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

In the list of "Individual Native Americans who are or have been actively opposed to the Redskins' name" you provide citations for all of them except Dr. Adrienne Keene - possibly an oversight? Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I have removed Dr. Keene, since she is the least notable and sources for her are for general opposition to cultural appropriation rather than specifically about the Redskins.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources comments

A fair number of the sources links are displaying "page not found" or equivalent messages. Please visit refs 44, 53, 67, 83, 85, 96, 98, 102, 103, 109, 116, 162, 172, and 181. You should also look at 180, which doesn't provide an obvious route to the article in question. I'll leave the general sources review until you've dealt with these. Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately an edit I made above changed these ref numbers.

However, I have found and fixed a number of dead links.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Further sources comments

• A large number of references are lacking publisher details, e.g. 11, 13, 14, 19, 29, and many more
• Likewise numerous retrieval dates are missing, e.g. 5,10, 11, 12, 16 and lots more.
• Inappropriate capitalizations in 5 and 23. It's not WP practice, even though a website uses capitals in this way
• Ref 30: The link appears dead. It produces the message "This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below"
• Inconsistent italicization, e.g. with ESPN

These are a few points picked up from a very partial review of the sources. The section clearly needs a lot of further attention. Brianboulton (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Initial comments by Finetooth

Lead

• ¶1 "...a National Football League (NFL) franchise located in the Washington metropolitan area." – Delete "located"?
• ¶1 "...but it receives more public attention due to the name itself being defined as derogatory or insulting in modern dictionaries, and the prominence of the team representing the nation's capital." – The "due to ... -ing" construction is a bit awkward. Suggestion: "but it receives more public attention because modern dictionaries define the name as derogatory or insulting and because the team represents the nation's capital."
• ¶2 "...counts the total enrollment of its membership as 1.2 million individuals." – Tighten by seven words? Suggestion: "...has 1.2 million members."
• ¶2 "...again voted to cancel the Redskins federal trademark..." – Delete "again" or say when they voted before 2014?
• ¶2 Link Supreme Court of the United States.

General

• Concise alt text would be nice even if not required.
• The dab checker finds no dab problems.
• The link checker finds four dead URLs as of November 4, 2017.

Update: Citation 182 is dead as of November 7. Finetooth (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Other link checkers find no overlinking problems.

Finetooth (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The count of 1.2 million cited in the Amicus brief of the NCAI in the trademark case was not for direct membership in the organization, but is a count of the total enrolled membership in the tribes which are themselves represented by the NCAI. Thus it would be inaccurate to state that the NCAI has that many individual members.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I had to temporarily stop reviewing before reading the "Native American advocates of change" subsection, where the situation is made more clear. I think using "member tribes" instead of "membership" in the lead would make it more clear there too. Finetooth (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The latter is now "..counts the enrollment of its member tribes as totaling 1.2 million individuals". The other minor edits have been made.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

More comments by Finetooth

my notes in blue--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

History

• ¶1 "than to honor coach William Henry "Lone Star" Dietz" – I'd add the reason why it might honor him; otherwise it will not be apparent to readers unless they click through to the Dietz article. Done

Origin and meaning

• ¶1 "Much of the public debate is over the meaning of the word "redskin", team supporters frequently citing a paper by Ives Goddard, a Smithsonian Institution senior linguist and curator emeritus, who asserts that the term was originally benign in meaning; though in an interview Goddard admits that it is impossible to verify if the native words were accurately translated." – Too complex. Suggestion: Use a terminal period after "redskin", then begin the next sentence as "Team supporters frequently cite a paper...". Reworded somewhat
• ¶1 "...impossible to verify if the native words were accurately translated." – It might be useful to add the native words if that info is available.Native words are not given, but where first translated into French as "peau rouge" and then into English as redskin.
• ¶1 "Dr. Darren R. Reid, a history lecturer at Coventry University..." – The Manual of Style suggests using a descriptive phrase rather than an academic title. Delete "Dr."? Done
• ¶2 "In the Washington Redskins trademark litigation..." – This one really threw me for a loop. It took me a long while to realize that the link is to another part of this article. That's a confusing no-no. The fix, not necessarily easy, is to restructure the article so that the link becomes unnecessary. For the article to flow logically, something about the trademark cases needs to appear much earlier in the main text. I remember reading how to do internal links, so now I am surprised to find they are verboten. However, the link is not essential so I have removed it.

My point is that the first main-text mention of trademarks is here: "in the Washington Redskins trademark litigation". This needs further explanation at this point in the article rather than much later. Trademarks are mentioned in the lead, but the lead is an abstract of the main text (which needs to be complete without reference to the abstract). The question you have to ask is "does this article make sense for a reader who cannot read the abstract and hasn't yet read the rest of the article?" Links are fine if they link to an entirely different Wikipedia article but not if they link to another part of the same article, in effect saying, "To understand part A of this article, read part B of this article."

My solution has been to move the entire trademark content to become a subsection of the "Origin and meaning" section, since establishing that redskin is a slur was central to the cases. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

That may work as a general solution, but "In a 2014 interview after the trademark decision, Amanda Blackhorse, the lead petitioner..." still precedes the explanation of what trademark decision this was, and in the trademark subsection "While Dan Snyder..." has become the first mention of Dan Snyder in the main text and needs a link and a brief description, "team owner" or some such. Also, Amanda Blackhorse should only be linked once, on first mention. Finetooth (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Did not think about the cleanup needed after the move, it has been done.

• ¶2 "...the linguistic expert for the petitioners, Dr. Geoffrey Nunberg" – Ditto for this one. You don't need the "Dr.". Done
• ¶2 "...sentimental paeans to the noble savage." – Link paean and link noble savage here on first use rather than in the Controversy section on second use? Done
• ¶3 "Ross also notes that while activism on the issue may be from a minority of Native Americans, this is due to most being concerned with more immediate issues...". – At first glance, this might be understood to mean that most of the minority are concerned with other issues. Suggestion: "Ross also notes that while activism on the issue may be from a minority of Native Americans, this is because most of the majority are concerned with more immediate issues..." I went back to the source to better summarize what Ross says, omitting the long somewhat ambiguous quote, but finding another more pointed one. I swapped the paragraphs since Ross is speaking to the issue of Native HS usage validating the Washington team usage.

Controversy

• ¶1 "...and why their use by sports teams should be eliminated." – Neutrality. In-text attribution here would make it more clear that this is what someone or some groups say, not what Wikipedia asserts. Entire section rewritten to emphasize the primacy of academic opinion
• ¶2 I'd add the names of the experts being quoted to the quote starting with "Since the first Europeans...", and I'd consider setting the quotation off as a blockquote, as in MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. The quote contains content that builds upon the other text, the connection might be lost as a blockquote.
• ¶3 No need for the "Dr." for Richard Lapchick. Done
• ¶5 "The team's owner[47] and the NFL Commissioner, supporters of keeping the name and logo..." – I'd add and link Daniel Snyder and Roger Goodell here on first mention in the article rather than waiting until ¶4 of the Civil rights subsection. Done
• ¶6 "In a report published by the Center for American Progress...". – The direct link to an external source from within the text should be replaced by an inline citation. Done

Native American advocates for change

• ¶1 "...the TTAB placed significance..." I think it would be good to spell out and abbreviate TTAB here rather than in the lead, as you do already with the NCAI. Done
• ¶1 Link amicus brief? Done
• ¶2 Link Oneida Indian Nation ? Done

Civil rights and religious organizations

• ¶2 "The Fritz Pollard Alliance, a non-profit organization closely allied with the NFL on civil rights issues, has decided to announce its support..." – Can you say when it decided this? Done
• ¶2 Link Fritz Pollard? Done
• ¶5 Link United Church of Christ and synod? Done

Protests

• ¶1 "Although often assumed to be a debate of recent origins, local Washington, D.C., newspapers have published...". – I would delete the opening clause and just start the sentence with "Local..." rather than having to say who assumes. I want to say something about the erroneous public assumption that this is a new debate, which is what the sources support.

OK. Finetooth (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Responses to the controversy

• ¶1 "Link Pine Ridge Indian Reservation? Done
• ¶2 "Snyder's response, and that of other fans, reflects the psychology of identification with sports teams. Self-esteem becomes bound to the players and the team, with many beneficial but also some unfortunate consequences, including denial or rationalization of misbehavior." Neutrality. This strong assertion needs in-text attribution, such as "According to X, a professional Y...". The attribution is as stated: the psychology of identification with sports teams. The citation is for a popularized version by a journalist, but academic sources could be added.

OK. The three citations offer considerable support, and it may be that no one will doubt the claim. Finetooth (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Alternative Native American opinion in support of Redskins name

• ¶1 "Soon it was reported that the Redskins' "full-blooded American Inuit chief" was "neither, and "Chief" was only a nickname, including being on a list of AKAs from court records related to "theft, paternity, and domestic violence matters." – The ending clause may be a bit too POVish in that it thumps on his wickedness, and the sentence is ungrammatical. Suggestion: "Soon it was reported that the Redskins' "full-blooded American Inuit chief" was "neither and that "Chief" was merely a nickname used by Dodson."
  • Reworded somewhat but it would be POV to exclude what the source supports, Dodson was not only a liar but a petty criminal.

OK, but the prose is still unclear. "Soon it was reported that the Dodson was neither a full-blooded Inuit nor a "Chief"; the latter only a nickname, including being on a list of AKAs from court records related to "theft, paternity, and domestic violence matters." How about "Soon it was reported that the Dodson was neither a full-blooded Inuit nor a "Chief" and that court records linked him to instances of "theft, paternity, and domestic violence."? OK except the word "matters" is part of the quote and applied to both paternity and domestic violence. Leaving it our implies paternity is a crime?

You are quite right about "matters". Between us, I think we have got it right. Finetooth (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• ¶2 It would be helpful in this paragraph to add dates, if available; i.e., "states", "stated" and "published" when?

Name change as a business decision

• ¶1 "There have been no name changes by professional teams, though a comparison of NFL teams shows the highest negative trend in brand equity being the Washington Redskins and the Kansas City Chiefs, calling into question the business logic of retaining Native American names or logos that are offensive to even a minority." – Link brand equity? Who questions the business logic? This will appear to be POV without in-text attribution to someone. There is already an attribution of the brand equity opinion to two professors at Emory University, their institutional status being more noteworthy than themselves.

OK. I added the link. Please remove if you disagree. Finetooth (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• ¶1 "the value of the team has risen" – From when to when? What made it rise? Also already cited, the valuation by Forbes is for 2014-2015, although no basis for the valuation is reported

OK. I missed seeing the dates, but there they are. Finetooth (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• I have to take another break from this, though I still have a couple of sections to go. Finetooth (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The above will take some time, since I am not doing each item in isolation. The neutrality issue at the beginning of Controversy section has prompted me to rewrite and reorganize; and I have further summarized the trademarks section to reflect the irrelevance of much of this in the wake of the SCOTUS decision, although all the gory details remain in the linked article.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• OK. I hold off on further comments until the dust settles. Please ping me when you think the article is ready for another look. Finetooth (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Finetooth - Ready for review.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Third installment of Finetooth comments

DC Metro area jurisdictions

• ¶1 "the current governor opposes any change" – I would add his name, Larry Hogan, in part to make the timeline more clear. done

Public opinion polls

• ¶2 The direct in-text link to an external supporting source, the memo, should be converted to an in-line citation. done
• ¶4 Link pow wow? done

• I'd like to see how you respond to Brianboulton's comments on sources before spending more time on this. I can see at a glance that the entries have many problems, as Brian has noted. Finetooth (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• As noted, I made an intermediate edit which altered the ref numbers, so I went through all within the range indicated (~44-181) looking for dead links, and thought that I had fixed all by adding archive links or new sources.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• You may have fixed the dead links, but haven't made any response to my later comments, posted 6 November, which I concluded with "These are a few points picked up from a very partial review of the sources. The section clearly needs a lot of further attention." Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I was only thinking of dead links and did not go back to the other points. The ref #30 (nor 29 and 31) returns no error for me. Since I cut and paste to construct references, capitalization and formatting is likely whatever the source offered. While about 85% of the article may be my work, I do not copy edit other contributors, and have no interest in doing so. Is there a guideline that specifies what reference parameters are required in FAs; and is there an automated tool to check for them?

The italicizing of ESPN in one ref was due to someone using the "website" parameter rather than "publisher", so I have changed that.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have to do the hard graft yourself. WP:CITE states that, while there is no single house style for references, citations within individual articles must be consistent. You are the one who brought this article to FAC, so regardless of what other contributors did, or of what form occurs in the source, it's down to you to create that consistency. There's a lot of stuff in WP:CITEHOW to guide you if needed. Note that the guideline gives specific information about the inclusion of access dates in web sources. I said in my 6 November that I hadn't looked at all the sources, and I don't want to do so until you've done what's necessary to bring them all into consistent order. Brianboulton (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Placed the following in a comment at the top of the page: (working through the list, completed ref #49)

• Citation conventions in this article per FA review November 2017
• Name all refs name="authorlastFirstInitial.date", or name="publisher.date" (YYYYMMDD, YYYYMM or YYYY) if neither name nor publisher is this a RS?
• Parameters:
  • author(s) - for books and journal articles, first and last, for news and web sources, author=full name
  • accessdate for all sources with a url
  • issn for books
  • publisher and/or newspaper
• --WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Citations, content

@Brianboulton, @Finetooth: I have completed a run-though of the citations. Could not resist tweaking the content alone the way, the significant change being adding a sub-section to Controversy that contains the academic point of view, leaving the opposing views for the Response to controversy.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Although the presentation of the sources has improved, there are still things left to do. Many retrieval dates are missing, there are citations to books lacking page numbers, at least one case of a missing publisher (ref 21), and continuing inconsistences in the italicization of publishers. Brianboulton (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

For online equivalents to print news, most notably the Washington Post and New York Times, I have always used the "newspaper" parameter rather than publisher. It is the cite news template that italicizes this parameter. Is it necessary to add publisher=The New York Times Company ?

Ref #21 is unique, since it is a podcast which the author has also transcribed and posted on his own website. I have added the website parameter in lieu of a publisher since the text version is essentially self-published, and there seems to be no option for citing non-print media, but I consider it a RS nonetheless.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Notes on citations:

• As I stated above, it has always been my assumption that the accessdate parameter applied only to citations with urls, not books or journal articles which have permanent identifiers such as isbn, doi, or jstor permalink. The cite journal template documentation specifically notes that a doi precludes the need for an access-date.
  • I have since discovered that using accessdate without a url generates an error, but not one that is usually visible.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Journal articles cited:
  • #9 - Clark (2005) has doi
  • #18 - Shoemaker (1997) since url is to a pdf, added accessdate, jstor link to journal
  • #59 - Chaney (2001) since this was published by a research institute, there was no doi; added link to pdf and accessdate
  • #60 - Kim-Prieto, Chu (March 2010) - has doi
  • #210 - Charles Springwood (February 2004) - needs doi added doi

• Books cited:
  • #17 - Shoemaker (2004) needs page numbers direct quote is on page 129
  • #27 - Stapleton (2001) needs page numbers added goggle books url and accessdate, page 83
  • #32 - King (2016) needs page numbers added goggle books url and accessdate, page 16, chapter "Origins"

• Missing accessdates: (Missed these because I did not think of the obvious method for finding missing "Retrieval"; using the browser Find on the page rather that scanning the source code...)
  • #23 - American Heritage Dictionary fixed, also added etymology that includes Native words translated into French, then English
  • #69 - Amanda Terkel (July 22, 2014) done
  • #74 - APA (2005) done
  • #76 - AAA publisher and accessdate
  • #85 thru 88 done
  • #96 - Joe Heim (November 23, 2016) done
  • #98 - Dirk Lammers (October 22, 2012) done
  • #112 - Dan Steinberg (June 3, 2014) done
  • #113 - Fred Hiatt (September 21, 2014) done
  • #115 - also needs author corrected newspaper also
  • #116 - Todd Unger (October 13, 2013) done
  • #117 - also need author done
  • #123 - Associated Press (October 12, 2014) done
  • #124 - Associated Press (November 2, 2014) done
  • #125 - John Woodrow Cox (November 2, 2014) done
  • #126 - Jeff Gammage (October 20, 2017) done
  • #128 - author? Redundant second ref, deleted (thus changing all the following ref numbers)
  • #128 - NARF done
  • #129 - Melissa Griffiths (June 25, 2015) done
  • #147 - Cindy Boren (June 12, 2013) added accessdate
  • #148 - Dave McKenna (June 27, 2013) added accessdate
  • #150 - Paul Woody (May 15, 2013) added accessdate
  • #152 - Mark Sullivan (July 3, 2014) added accessdate
  • #154 - Mike Jones (November 25, 2013) added accessdate
  • #155 - Erik Brady (November 27, 2013) added accessdate
  • #156 - Benjamin Freed (November 26, 2013) added accessdate
  • #157 - Megan Finnerty (October 10, 2014) added accessdate
  • #158 - Dan Steinberg (August 12, 2014) added accessdate
  • #159 - Laura Stampler (August 12, 2014) added accessdate
  • #160 - added website, accessdate
  • #161 - Dave McKenna (October 7, 2014) added accessdate
  • #178 - J. P. Finlay (January 4, 2015) added accessdate
  • #206 - PPP added accessdate, publisher, fixed title
  • #210 - Dhillon etal added accessdate
  • #213 - Scott Clement; Emily Guskin (May 19, 2016) added accessdate

Working --WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Completed --WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton, @Finetooth: There is likely only a brief window between the holidays when further progress might be made. I would appreciate a final decision, but think that the article has already been improved, so whether it is GA or FA is not that significant. However page views do peak during American football season.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that you've made many improvements to the article since the start of this nomination, but I think it doubtful that promotion is likely during this go-round. From some of our exchanges here, I gather that you are relatively unfamiliar with FAC and were caught by surprise at some of the criteria. A "final decision" is not something that happens here; promotion or archiving are the two possible outcomes, and archiving does not eliminate the possibility of re-nomination. The main thing the current nomination is lacking at this point is further review by fresh eyes. My suggestion is to withdraw the nomination, submit it to WP:PR and/or seek out other interested editors to review the article and make further improvements before re-nominating. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

My only reason for the nomination was to prompt the attention of fresh eyes, which has been difficult to get for this article. Since a new year is approaching, if I do nothing, this discussion will be archived? That is fine with me; and I appreciate the attention given.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Finetooth – early promotion looks unlikely. We are approaching the Christmas season when it becomes harder to get reviwers' commitment, and I think a renewed FAC early next year, when the lessons of this attempt have been absorbed, is probably the best way forward. This being your first FAC nomination, you might consider working on the re-nom with a mentor, who would ensure that the article was fully prepared before submission, and would smooth the way through the process. Mentored FACs rarely fail to get through. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Coord note -- my inclination is to archive this given the comments above and the length of time the nom has been open; for the sake of transparency, I did copyedit a few sections early on with the intention of recusing my coord duties and commenting but didn't find the time to complete that, so I don't think I have a COI here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• 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. Ian Rose (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

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