Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cento Vergilianus de laudibus Christi/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 promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2017 [1].

Cento Vergilianus de laudibus Christi

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fourth-century AD Christian patchwork Latin poem, arranged by the Roman noblewoman Faltonia Betitia Proba. Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi is composed entirely of lines by the Roman poet Virgil, but the author has taken them, rearranged them, and re-contextualized them to be about the Old and New Testaments of the Christian Bible. In addition to its peculiar poetic style, the work is unique for a number of reasons: for instance, it is one of the first examples of Christian poetry, and perhaps the first instance of a Christian, poetic description of hell. The poem was also likely the first work by a women to have been printed and disseminated via the printing press. Finally, this work falls under the umbrella of both Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers, meaning that the promotion of this article would help bring attention to an area that deserves study but has unfortunately been under-represented on this site. In regards to its readiness, the article was promoted to "good" status on May 2, 2016. It has undergone two peer-reviews (one in December of 2015, and one in June of 2017), and it was copy-edited in June of 2017 by Miniapolis. It looks good, reads well, has images, and is properly formatted. I think it is time for the next step.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Publius_Vergilius_Maro1.jpg needs a copyright tag for the sculpture. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've swapped the old Virgil pic out for a new one, to which I have also added an object copyright tag.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Ref 32: I rather think that "Dorothy Disse" is the publisher of this website, as well as its author, in which case the question arises: what makes her a reliable source? Incidentally, the link to the original source no longer works.

That's a good point. Here is a really useful 'review' of the website by then-UIowa current-Concordia University faculty member Nora E. Jaffary explaining in detail why it's a good, reliable source. Jaffary makes some solid points (if I do say so) that I believe support its inclusion on this page. As to the second point, I'm not sure what you mean; I did archive it, so in terms of actually accessing it, it should not be a huge issue.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was, there are two links in the reference, the first of which goes to the source while the second gives "Internal server error". There is no problem in accessing the source via the working link. Brianboulton (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I'm coming across as thick, but I guess I'm confused as to the issue? The first link has 'died', and so I've added an archive link. If I remove the original, dead url link I believe the citation template will give an error message. Anyway, I believe we're supposed to keep them as per WP:KDL.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 53: page range inconsistent

Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 60: "p." missing?

Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 73 and 84: I assume that your sources are published editions of these ancient works, in which case you need to provide details.

I'm only referring to the original sources. Giving citations like this is standard practice for ancient documents, especially in the Classics, and based on previous experiences at FAN and GAN here at WP (e.g.), I have assumed it is acceptable here, too.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked again at how these citations are used in the text, I have no further issue with them. Brianboulton (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these points, sources seem fine. Brianboulton (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Tim riley

Support. Well written, and (as far as a layman can judge) a comprehensive treatment of a delightfully dotty topic. Nicely illustrated, and well sourced and referenced. The lead is on the short side, but having read the main text I didn't see anything that I thought should have been mentioned in the lead. I enjoyed this article, and look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course. – Tim riley talk 13:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Resolved comments from Finetooth

This is professionally written, informative, and nicely illustrated. I have no first-hand knowledge of the poem itself or the period in which it was written, but I'm able to comment on prose, logic, and MOS issues. Nothing here will give you much trouble. My main concern has to do with confusion about the authorship controversy, as noted below.

Lead

¶1 "taken from other authors and disposed in a new form" – Would "arranged" be better than "disposed"?

Origin and style

¶2 The footnote numbers [7][4][8] should be arranged in ascending order: [4][7][8].
¶3 "reinterprets a number of New Testament episodes in which Jesus urged his followers to eschew wealth into passages" – Maybe "reinterprets ... as" rather than "reinterprets ... into"?
¶4 "This is because Hebrew names like "Jesus" and "Mary" were never used by Virgil,..." – Tighten by flipping to active voice? Suggestion: "This is because Virgil never used Hebrew names like "Jesus" and "Mary,...".
¶4 "To compensate for this issue, the poet took to using..." – Tighten by deleting "issue" and replacing "took to using" with "used"?

Summary

¶3 "Christ's deeds are telescoped down..." – Maybe "reduced to" or "expressed as" rather than "telescoped down"?
¶3 "After Christ's death, Proba transforms lines referring to the erotic love between Dido and Aeneas to signify "the sacred love of Christ and his followers." - Rather than saying that after Christ's death, Proba does something, simply delete "After Christ's death"?
¶3 "After his resurrection, Christ describes the world to come to his followers with the prophecy..." – Does Christ make this prophecy before or after his death? The sentence as written suggests "after". Recast the sentence if "before" is correct.

Reception

"¶1 "...Proba's cento was popular, and is attested in manuscript records..." – Maybe "as is attested" rather than "and is attested"?
¶1 The Manual of Style in MOS:LWQ recommends against linking terms (mysogynistic in this case) inside a direct quotation.

Authorship controversy

¶1 "largely on the assertion of Isidore" – Link Isidore here as well as in the lead and in the caption? Or have I missed another one in the main text?
¶1 "...Danuta Shanzer has argued that the poem was not written by Anicia Faltonia Proba..." and "...who agree with [Shanzer] developed the following arguments as to why they believe that the work was by Faltonia Betitia Proba..." – Big confusion here. The rest of the paragraph asserts that Anicia Proba was the author and not her grandmother. Contradiction?

I would move the image of Isidore to the left so that he looks into the page rather than out.

General

ISBNs in the bibliography and further reading sections need hyphens. A converter lives here. It's a two-step process. Enter the unhyphenated 13-digit ISBN to convert it to a 10-digit ISBN, then enter the 10-digit ISBN to convert it to a 13-digit ISBN with hyphens.
The link checkers found no dead URLS or dabs.
I see no duplink problems.

That's all. Finetooth (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Finetooth: For some reason, I didn't get a notification on my Watchlist that you had left some comments (or perhaps I did and didn't notice... whoops!) Either way, I have tried to implement your suggestions. Please take a look at these edits and see if anything stands out.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gen. Quon: Everything looks fine, and I'm happy to support. Finetooth (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Dudley

Resolved comments from Dudley

"after the author's conversion to Christianity" I think it should be "the arranger's". Author is not strictly correct, and is confusing as Proba has just been described as arranging the poem and it is not clear whether a separate author is being referred to.

I just changed it to "her" since its fairly clear who we're talking about in the sentence.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead you say the poem was written 350-60 in opposition to Julian's anti-Christianity as emperor, but he was emperor 361-3, after the the poem was written. In the main text you say that her conversion rather than the poem dates to 350-60.

I found a source with a wider date margin: AD 352–84. Now it makes a bit more sense imho, given that Julian's reign would have been right in the middle.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The impetus for its creation is unknown, although several hypotheses have been proposed; Proba may have tried to circumvent a law enacted by Roman Emperor Julian forbidding Christians from teaching classical Greek and Latin literature in which they did not believe, or she rebutted the unflattering and demonizing descriptions of Jesus espoused by Julian in Caesares and Contra Galilaeos. Although the poem was widely circulated," As all the ideas about Proba's motivation are speculations wihout evidence, I do not think they belong in the lead. I would expand on the poem's early popularity instead.

I've re-written the intro.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"proemium" This links to Preface, which gives the alternative proem but not proemium. I think "proem" is preferable. It is more understandable for readers than the very rare "proemium".

This has been changed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"She seems to de-emphasize the importance of asceticism" Presumably compared with the New Testament, but this should be spelled out.

Spelled out now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Concerning the latter, " This phrase is clumsy and superfluous.

Removed and rewritten to provide a better transition.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find the frequent use of brackets irritating and unnecessary, but this is a matter of personal preference.

I tried to remove some.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigrid Schottenius Culhead. You sometimes spell the name as Cullhed, sometimes Culhead, but presumably they are the same person?

An embarrassing example of a misspelling that was copied and then pasted. It has been rectified.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The following New Testament episodes deal with the life of Jesus, his crucifixion, and the coming of the Holy Spirit." Do you mean that the cento is based on these episodes?

Rewritten and simplified.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Culhead writes that the aforementioned views of Mary in the poem are inadequate" Do you mean the views of scholars in the previous paragraph? This wording is clumsy and needs clarification.

Rewritten to be (hopefully!) more clear.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"who called De laudibus Christi apocryphal" I do not understand what is meant by this. OED defines apocryphal as "A writing or statement of doubtful authorship or authenticity".

Good question, but that's what the sources say. I believe it's being used in the "this isn't biblical canon" sort of way, but that's just a guess.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can see, the work in which Gelasius is said to have described the cento as apocryphical is not considered by scholars as genuine. See Decretum Gelasianum, [2] and [3]. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Another excellent catch! See this edit.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite these criticisms, Roman Emperor Arcadius (AD 395–408)..." This is reads oddly as one of the two criticisms cited was long after the death of Arcadius.

I've redone this section to make it more chronological, as well as to reflect the sort of mixed reaction with which it was met.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"With that said" This is strange wording. What is wrong with "However,"?

Swapped out.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Faltonia Betitia Proba's alleged death in AD 351 is unproven" You have not previously referred to this alleged death, stating that 351 was the date of her marriage.
I've add this info to the previous paragraph. The scholars who think it wasn't written by Faltonia Proba argue that she died in AD 351, but not many other scholars accept this (especially with the date range that's discussed near the beginning of the article).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting article, but needs some work. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Thank you for your helpful and thoughtful comments and critiques. How are these changes looking?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Edwininlondon

Resolved comments from Edwininlondon

Thank you for bringing this here. We need a bit of diversity. My firs set of comments below:

fourth-century AD Latin poem, which was arranged by Faltonia Betitia Proba c. AD 352–84 --> bit odd to have two descriptions of when it was made in one sentence.
I've removed "fourth-century".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the poem was criticized as being of poor quality, but recent scholars have taken a renewed interest in it --> not sure I get the "but" here.
Changed it to "During the 19th and 20th centuries the poem was criticized as being of poor quality, but recent scholars have written more positively about it."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Faltonia Betitia Proba, the cento's author, was born around 322. --> is it known where was she born?
Unfortunately, I can't find much info on this. We barely even know when she was born. (Although I'd wagger she was born in Rome)--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Virgil --> first use in body of article should be linked. Same for Aeneas
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bernice Kaczynski -> some description would be helpful to the reader (historian?)
I have added "classicist".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The cento suggests that Proba ... given that topics like virginity and poverty are not recurring themes in the poem -> I'm not convinced this whole paragraph is right here. I much rather first read what the poem is actually about before reading about what we can derive from it or what is not in it.
I've removed this from the first section and added it to the section about Proba's motivation. I've renamed this whole portion of the article "Proba's character and motivation". I will probably tinker around with the title.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cullhed, for instance, --> I'm not sure I get the for instance. What is it an example of?
Removed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Laocoön's death (from Book II, Aen. --> is that Aen. abbreviation necessary? Makes the article look scholarly, less accessible
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the punctuation rules are applied correctly for quotes at the end of a sentence. See MOS:TQ. An example: and his followers."
I don't have the original source at the moment, but I'm a pretty rigid follower of logical punctuation, which is what is preferred on WP.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The poet does this in three major ways. Proba -> She
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus's -> only once do you end the possessive in s's, elsewhere you have Jesus'
Changed to be more consistent.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"It is Mary's -> if you start quote with a capital you should end it with ."
I've re-written that whole sentence.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Carthage could be a link
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vergil -> unfortunate that the quote uses an alternative spelling of Virgil. Something must be done, now it looks like you made a typo
I've inserted the Wiki-approved spelling, surrounding by brackets.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aurelio Amatucci -> what is so special about this person, unlike all the other commentators, that this is a redlink?
I'm not quite sure (I think he might have a wiki page in another language, but I can't find it). I've removed it for the time being.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cătălina Mărmureanu et al. -> I much prefer the other 2 named as well. This is not a scientific paper.
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jerome -> a short intro would be good
How is "he theologian, historian, and translator"?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AD 395–408 -> normally this would be years of birth and death, so something along the lines of "who reigned from " might be better. This doesn't need to be repeated I think for the next reigns (Theodosius II, etc)
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pope Gelasius I (492–496) -> I don't miss the AD here, but it does look odd that a bit further on the AD returns with Isidore
Re-added, and also added "who held the papacy from" before the date.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Middle Ages -> link
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Faltonia Betitia Proba may have been the first female -> why the full name here?
Collapsed down to just "Proba".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nineteenth- and 20th-century -> that looks odd. Rephrase sentence such that you can use 19th
Changed to, "Scholarship in the 19th and 20th-century was more critical of the poem".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"late antiquity's 'poverty of ideas'" -> I don't quite see why you need ' and "
Are you referring to the alternation between single- and double-quotes? If so, it's per MOS:QWQ.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why it isn't just "late antiquity's poverty of ideas" Edwininlondon (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hower -> However you mean?

Ah, I see. I changed it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you've never heard of the great philologist Jubilation G. Hower. ;) But seriously, I've fixed that goofy typo.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: I appreciate your useful comments. Here are my changes; do tell me what you think!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So far so good. A bit more:

a late-fourth- and early-fifth-century noblewoman and the granddaughter of Faltonia Betitia Proba -> I would put the most notable fact first, which I assume is her being the granddaughter.
I've re-arranged this entire section.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the second point, --> bit of a strain for the reader to figure out what the first, second, etc. points were since they are not labelled and it even seems the third and fourth are inconveniently made in one sentence
Ditto.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the reference to the 387 debate about Easter could have referred to an earlier dispute -> is the argument that the reference to the debate about Easter could have been to a debate before 387? That's not what it currently says. It currently says there is a reference to the 387 debate, taking that as fact.
Ditto.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for the third point -> I don't see how this is a counterargument. Or is it not meant to be a counterargument?
Ditto.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AD 351 -> inconsistent with the 387 a few lines earlier
Ditto.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cullhed notes that the works "position in the -> not sure if grammar is correct here. For instance do you mean work's?
Ditto.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
9780891304814 and the other ISBNs in Further reading should have hypens
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leiden, Netherlands -> the Netherlands
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ziolkowski ref should be moved to the end
Oops! Good catch.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that I miss is the textual history. In Astronomica you have a whole section about it, but here there isn't anything at all. Is there nothing to be said? Surely there is some copy of a copy written by some monk 100s of years ago... :) Edwininlondon (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional comments. I'll try to respond to/fix them in the coming days. In regards to the textual history, I would have to look at the sources again, but I think the issue is there really isn't anything interesting to consider. This work is preserved in a way that something like the Astronomica isn't. And since it's made up entirely of stuff borrowed from Vergil, even minor mistakes would be easy to fix. But I'll try to find something.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: Here are the I have made. Do tell me what you think. In regards to the textual history, I'm not finding a whole lot.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some additional copy-edits as well.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Too bad about the textual history, but that's a nice to have, not necessary. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Caeciliusinhorto

Resolved comments from Caeciliusinhorto

An excellent article. I have reviewed it before, and it was very good then; if anything it has improved. Two comments:

why is Christ's crucifixion only "partially" conveyed with "several lines describing Hadean punishment"?
Good point. I've re-done this whole section.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps worth noting (re. Proba's treatment of Jesus' injunction to eschew wealth) that in late antiquity this was a theological issue in a way that it no longer is today, with ascetics taking this very seriously. I don't think this is actually necessary, but non-specialists might not realise that while today barely anyone takes Jesus' radical positions on wealth literally, in late antiquity this was very much a live issue, and e.g. Anthony the Great gave up a not insubstantial inheritance to live an ascetic life in the desert.

I think that this is a good point, although I'm having a bit of trouble finding a good way to express without it seeming a bit tangential. Do you think a link to Asceticism#Christianity or Ascetical theology#Fathers and Doctors of the Church might help to better emphasize this?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about the problem of seeming overly tangential. Asceticism#Christianity looks like a good target for a link... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this any better? Or is it too hidden?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is okay, yes. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I will try to respond to them in the coming days.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: I believe I fixed the first issue. I'd love to hear your ideas about the second!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto and Edwininlondon: Sorry to ping you to death, but I realize that I didn't cover the Flood or the Exodus in the original poem summary, so I whipped this up. Please tell me what you think!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing in the new paragraph I would change: repetition of "discusses... discussed" in the first sentence. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. That slipped past me.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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