Talk:2011 Tucson shooting/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 14:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Pass.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  15:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * On hold to 12 Jan to allow time to finish work on the lead.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Tick box
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments

 * Pass
 * Images and captions are acceptable.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an appropriate reference section.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Stable. No edit wars, though I note there has been a number of reverts of edits by IP and new accounts - checking on these I note some have been low level vandalism, and some have been inadequate but good faith edits. If main contributors feel that the nuisance of the inappropriate IP edits outweigh the advantages of keeping the article open, I will semi-protect on request.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer. I've had this article on my watchlist since the day of the event, and I don't think it needs protection at this time. If it does, I'll seek WP:RPP. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * All MoS issues apart from Lead.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sourced. Article is richly sourced to respectable media sources. There may be a tendency to overcite. The lead is heavily cited, including multiple cites. This is discouraged per WP:CITELEAD. Also worth considering is using WP:CITEBUNDLE - that is having one cite at the end of a sentence rather than several cites scattered through a sentence and/or a multiple cite at the end.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen no evidence of original research. The sources are closely followed.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Major aspects. There seems decent coverage of the event and aftermath. As this is an ongoing news item it will need to be updated with the court case, though as things stand now, the article seems pretty up to date.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  20:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Article appears balanced and neutral.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  22:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Query
 * Prose. The sentences are sometimes short, which, combined with a series of short paragraphs give a choppy, awkward feel when reading, and an untidy appearance. In addition, the opening sentences of the lead are not clear. From the title of the article and the first few sentences I wasn't aware that this was about the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. The shooting made the media over here in the UK, but it was the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords that made it internationally notable - the date and location are not as important. WP:MOSINTRO gives some good advice on structuring the opening paragraph and sentence of the lead.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll get to work on the prose this afternoon. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Focus. The "Speculation on causation" section feels a little excessive and loose. There are some important observations being recorded, but there are not that many for the length and detail of the section. The "Suspect" section is equally loose, and given that there is a dedicated article on Loughner, I wonder if it needs to be that long. I also wonder if some of the information in that section might be better placed elsewhere. For example, Bryce Tierney's speculation on motive might be better placed in the "Speculation on causation" section (awkward section title that - would "Possible motives" serve better?). The info about buying a gun and ammo might appear either in the "Investigation" or "Shooting" sections, as that info is about the incident rather than background info about Loughner.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  20:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Fail
 * To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know.
 * I have tidied up the initial sentences, and I don't think there's anything mentioned in the lead that is not mentioned in the main; the main focus here is to ensure that the lead contains an adequate summary of the main body - and that there is an appropriate balance. Currently there is a lot of information on Loughner in the main body, but little in the lead. As well as providing more detail about Loughner in the lead, some consideration should be given to how much of the information on Loughner in the main body is appropriate for this article, given that it is about the shooting itself, and there is already an article on Loughner. I'll bring this up again in relation to criteria 3(b) - Focused.
 * It is very common for the lead to need attention during a GAN, and this article's lead is fairly average in that respect.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your tidying. I'm giving consideration to the lead. I was thinking about adding a paragraph about the reactions to the shooting, which aren't included in the lead. What do you think about that? I'm not sure how much information about Loughner should go in the lead, especially as much of what we know comes from speculative reports from peers. He hasn't made any public statements, so all we can do is make inferences, which may not be lead-appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the reluctance on including much info on Loughner in the lead. I tend to feel that way as well, and that feeling tends to come when the material itself is perhaps not suited to the article at all. There should be info on him, as he is the person who was seen to do the shootings. Though it's a judgement call as to how much info on him as a person to include. Info on his involvement in the incident? Yes. Info on his schooling, habits, friends, opinions? Hmmmm... Some, but how much, and what? I suppose a guide would be what the sources have focused on. "An unemployed loner with a drug habit and what police call “a mental issue”" from The Independent; "army reject with a troubled past" from The Guardian; and "a college dropout" from The Telegraph. There are others, but no real consistency - other than mental health issues. It's a tricky area. I suppose it's a case of trying out a few statements and seeing what works.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  22:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reactions to the shooting in the lead. Yes. As there is a significant section on that. What is the situation now regarding Loughner? He has been declared unfit to stand trial, yet the article still talks in terms of a trial going to happen - "If convicted in either federal or state court....", "The federal case will be heard...", "Prosecutors representing the State of Arizona announced they intend to file murder and attempted murder charges..."  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  22:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems that it's still ongoing. He's been declared unfit to stand trial, but there are legal wranglings ongoing about his being forced to take medications. It's all unclear, and gets into WP:CRYSTAL territory at this time. Loughner's article covers this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify this, I've found that Loughner was found unfit to stand trial, but that doesn't mean he won't stand trial ever. He's due to be reevaluated by the end of this month. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * General comments
 * I have to raise the issue of the article title. I was curious about it, and did a Google search which indicated that "Gabrielle Giffords assassination attempt" was the most common phrase. On looking back at the talkpage history I note that this has been a contentious issue, and that the page is locked on the present title by consensus. As the last comment on the title was four months ago, and the title is locked, I think it may be considered "stable" and the title issue shouldn't impact on the GA review, though I do feel a little uncomfortable, as the title is not clear, and is not the most common phrase used, so I can imagine that there may be future requests to have the title changed.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right that it was contentious at the time, though as you mention, it is stable as nobody has commented on it in some time. While it may not be the best possible title, and I am open to a future discussion on renaming the article, article titles are beyond the scope of GA reviews, so I had no issues nominating the page despite the title. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The title has been disputed and queried several times. It may be disputed again in future. We don't know exactly if and when that dispute may occur. If a title dispute occurs during a GAN, the GAN is put on hold until the dispute is resolved. If the dispute is not resolved within a reasonable space of time, the GAN is closed as a fail. I am satisfied that there has been an appropriate search for consensus, that there has been a period of stability, and that the page is locked. I am just a little uncomfortable about the title. Though, having looked again, I was mistaken about "Gabrielle Giffords assassination attempt" being the most common phrase. I must have done an open search, as when I looked again just now with a closed search, the results were very low. I think finding an appropriate title for news events is difficult, especially when the events are still new. I don't want this GAN to be about the title, but I am slightly uneasy about it and though I would just raise that.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  20:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Gabrielle Giffords assassination attempt," or rather "Giffords assassination attempt," or something similar to that, seemed to be the most common phrase used in the news and news sources, so I wouldn't say that you were "off" in your assertion about that being the most common title. But I never had much of an issue with any title given to this article and am of course content with the current one. It was, as you know, kept at this destination via consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 05:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not a GA issue. The section titled "Target of the attack" is about Gabrielle Giffords rather than analysis or information about Loughner's intended target. Titling the section after the topic, "Gabrielle Giffords", might be more helpful.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  20:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed it to your suggestion, but I don't like how the shooting information is covered away from this section. The Shooting section is also about Gabrielle Giffords being shot. I would suggest making the Gabrielle Giffords section a subsection of "Shooting," but I don't like it when sections only consist of one subsection. I would put both sections as subsections under a blanket heading if I could think of a good one at the moment.


 * As for the section not having any analysis or information about Loughner's intended target, I believe it used to include a bit. The "Speculation on causation" section maybe did at one point as well. I definitely think something used be in the article saying that it wasn't clear if Loughner intended to shoot Giffords, but that can be attributed to the fact that the story was still fresh at that point and news report were changing about it all the time. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If there is a source saying that initially it was unclear if his intended target was Giffords that would be appropriate to use; though from my reading of sources now, there appears to be both an acceptance and evidence that he intended to shoot her.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  22:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I'll do what I can on this in the next couple days, but unfortunately I will be on vacation out of town from December 23 through January 8. Flyer22, I'm grateful for all of your help, but since I'm the nominator, I don't want to put all of this on you. If this isn't finished by Friday, would you be willing to keep it on hold until I return? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. You may need to nudge me in January though, as I'll be fully engaged in my ArbCom role by then, and already the induction is proving to be distracting.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  23:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * SilkTork, Loughner definitely intended to shoot people, or rather just someone, but I think there was something included about about how he may not have set out to shoot Giffords. Maybe shooting anyone there would have sufficed for him? Hmm. With regard to this article, I could also be remembering wrong, but I'm almost certain that I heard that on the news in the early days of the aftermath.


 * Muboshgu, I of course have no problem helping out. I know you nominated the article for GA, but I just don't feel that you should be going through it alone (as in the only editor meeting the GA demands). Since others, myself included, helped in building this article, it would be preferable if they/we helped meet the GA demands. I can't help out with much, though, since I am busy with other matters on and off Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That rings a bell to me too, that the early reports on the news were that his motives/target were unclear - but I could be misremembering too. I'll see if I can find anything on that. Tvoz / talk 18:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All help is appreciated, especially since I have to be on my way to the airport in four hours. I know we've never gotten any explicit confirmation that Giffords herself was the target of the shooting. It could have been that he targeted the event and wanted to shoot as many people as he could, as you suggested. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * With GAN it is the article that is the focus, not the nominator, so everyone is welcomed and encouraged to help out - and that includes the reviewer! The nominator does not need to have any further involvement after the nomination, and I have completed a number of successful GANs where the nominator was not available for one reason or another.However, it is preferred if either the nominator or a significant contributor is available to assist. On listing a GA, I leave a * tag on the talkpage of each significant contributor, as often it is team work.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel that it is in extremely bad taste for a person to nominate an article for GA if that person is not going to participate in bringing the article to GA standards. Unless the article already meets those standards.


 * I also feel that it is in bad taste to nominate an article for GA if you are not a main contributor to the article and have not posed the question (on the talk page first) to the main contributors to see what they think or if they are still around. I mean, the main contributors may not want to go through the GA process at that time. Nominating it will make them feel that they have to participate, since they most likely don't want the article to fail. Others may feel that the article doesn't meet the GA standards yet. I know that I've been in those positions, as recently as the nomination of the Asexuality article. I was pretty much left alone to get it to GA status, although the reviewer helped out a bit (which I appreciate). If an article fails GA in any case where the main contributors were not notified or were not ready, it comes down to it all likely having been avoidable...if the nominator had simply discussed the matter on the talk page first. Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right that I could have brought it up on the talk page before nominating the article. I'll make it a point to do that again with my future nominations.
 * However, I consider myself a main contributor to this article, which you can see if you look back through the edit history. As to my not being here the last couple weeks, I nominated the article some time ago, and didn't expect it to be on review while I was away. Now I'm back, so I'll finish off the work. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My comments were not directed at you, Muboshgu. I was hoping you'd see that since you and what you did don't fit any of the examples I mentioned (notice I said "if you are not a main contributor to the article and have not posed the question to the main contributors"). I have no problem with a main contributor (and, yes, I was already aware that you are one because I remember you) nominating an article for GA, even if it is better in some cases to ask other main contributors before nominating. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah my bad, that old axiom of what happens when you "assume"... – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Unneeded references. We removed unneeded references from this article before at my advisement, because such references make the kilobyte size of articles bigger than the articles actually are and they can cause articles to open slower. This article doesn't have a lot of text, and so it's a bit silly that it has so many references, the number references that are typical of much bigger articles. I'll go ahead and remove unneeded references, leaving two references to the lines that have three or four backing them...unless three or four are actually needed. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove as much as I wanted to. Too many of the references are shared, which makes the matter complicated. Therefore, I only removed some references that aren't shared. The following line "Six of those shot died, including Arizona District Court Chief Judge John Roll, one of Rep. Giffords' staffers, and a nine-year-old child." has five references backed to it, for example, all shared. And that's the only reason I didn't cut it down to two. It's not really going to get rid of the references since they are backing other lines in the article. However, I'll likely still cut that line and others to only two references, since readers shouldn't have to check four or five to verify the material. Only if the material is very controversial or highly likely to be contested are that many references needed. That, and if each reference covers a relevant point not mentioned in the reference before it. But even in those cases, a couple of references that go over all the points should be searched for as an alternative. Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed some more of the extraneous references, but I agree that it's not a cut and dried issue. I don't think it should hold up the GA, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sorry that I haven't been able to help more. In addition to being focused on other things, I'm having Internet problems, which will hopefully go away soon. Flyer22 (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. You did alot while I was on vacation. I'm taking it across the finish line. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

On hold
This is an informative, neutral, and well sourced article on a recent and ongoing news item. It provides a range of decent and mainly clear information about the incident in an organised manner. There are some issues of tidiness and clarity regarding the prose, there is perhaps too much detail in places, and the lead needs expanding so it can stand alone as a succinct summary of the topic. Other than that, the article meets GA criteria. On hold for an initial seven days to allow the issues to be addressed.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  22:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * SilkTork, I don't feel that any section has too much information. The Speculation on causation section has always been the heftiest section because it has to do with the effect the incident had on the political climate. In fact, the section used to be titled Political climate. See Article really needs cleanup for the discussion about having changed the heading. I still prefer that heading. But, yeah, I could try to cut a bit from it or other areas. If you specify what areas you feel need cutting, I could give it a shot. Flyer22 (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I will take a closer look at it later. It may just need a rewrite to organise the information. Palin's name is scattered throughout the section. As for the name - reaction sections (which it appears to be) are normally named as such: Media reaction; Political reaction; International reaction, Local reaction, etc. Often there is a parent section termed "Reactions", with the other forms of reactions as subsections. The "aftermath" material is perhaps not a reaction, and could be placed elsewhere.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  13:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * SilkTork, I'm not seeing how "aftermath" is not a part of "reactions," or how we could separate the two. The reactions are what came after the shooting, which falls under the category of "aftermath." Take a look at September 11 attacks, for example. Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the way the September 11 attacks is organised. I've looked again at the material in this article, and made an edit reorganising the material and renaming sections. The incidents directly related to the shooting, such as the streets being cordoned off, I've moved to the shooting section and placed that alongside the material related to the victims being taken to hospital. That all seems to fit. That then leaves the Reaction section for events external to and independent of the shooting. I have put all of what appears to be political comment in the sub-section marked Political, and related incidents in a sub-section marked Incidents. I won't do any more edits to allow time to consider what I have done to see if it works. This will make a revert easier if it is felt to be a total mistake.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  13:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

As this is the holiday season, I'll extend the hold to 7 Jan to allow time for work to be done.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  14:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I like your reorganization. Something I don't like is the decision by an editor to not have the title of this article bolded. It looks odd because it deviates from standard practice.


 * Above you stated that "[t]here are some issues of tidiness and clarity regarding the prose, there is perhaps too much detail in places," but you didn't specify. Is this not a big issue? Have you decided that the tidiness and clarity are fine? You also addressed expanding the lead. In what way do you want the lead expanded? I see some stuff stated about it above and some things that were taken care of. Other than those issues, you say this article meets GA status. Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think there may still be too much detail in the Reaction section - I question the value of mentioning Governor Brewer's emergency legislation, and the amount of detail on James Eric Fuller. However, I think that is a matter for ongoing discussion, and as it is debatable I won't hold up the GAN because of it.
 * What does need attention is the lead. There either needs to be more info on Loughner, or the Suspect section needs to be substantially reduced - if the Suspect section is to remain as it, then it needs to be appropriately summarised in the lead. Also, there needs to be an adequate summary of the Reaction section. The Lead should be able to stand on its own as a reasonable summary of the events as detailed in the article. The holiday season is over now, and the work is not that difficult, so seven days should be enough. Once the lead is built up this will be listed. Ping me if the work is done before 12 January.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm back from my vacation now. I'll take a look at the lead and see what I can do this week. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! I'll take a look in a couple of days. I'm always happy to extend a hold if positive work is being done, but if there has been no progress, then I'll be looking to close.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yesterday I restructured the lead to three paragraphs (incident, suspect/legal proceedings, reactions), which I think should suffice. I'll probably trim the information on Loughner because much of that belongs on his own page (there had in the past been an issue of whether or not he should have his own page). Does that sound like it would encompass what needs to be done? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a move in the right direction. I think the summary of the political reaction could be expanded a bit more. Let me know when you've trimmed the suspect section.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  21:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say that it is odd that we are sending readers to these other articles about the shooting information and aftermath when this article is supposed to be about the shooting information and aftermath, but it makes sense when you consider that this topic is shared with the Gabrielle Giffords and Jared Lee Loughner articles and certain things are more about them than the shooting. The Barack Obama Tucson memorial speech could have fit here, but including all that would have made half of this article about the speech. Of course, it could also be argued that we didn't/don't need to go into extensive detail about the speech. Anyway, I was just digressing. Flyer22 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tried to only remove information from this article that is really not relevant to the shooting itself. In doing so, I've reduced the size of the suspect section somewhat. However, I can't cut it any more, as I feel that everything there is connected to the evaluation of the suspect in light of the shooting. As for the lead, I believe it now summarizes the main parts of the article, which is the event itself, the suspect and legal proceedings to this point, and the reactions (grief, analysis of political rhetoric, talk of gun control legislation). I could expand it a little further if you feel it's necessary, but I feel this is a succinct summary of the event. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of background information about the suspect in the article that is not summarised in the lead. Either it is felt that the material about Loughner's personal history is relevant to the article, in which case it needs to be summarised in the lead, or it is not and so should be removed to the Jared Lee Loughner article. Does his schooling need to be in the article? His previous offences? The online material? If so, summarise these - "He dropped out of school after complaints of inappropriate behaviour"; "Loughner, a 22-year-old Tucson man with a criminal record, was arrested..."; "Loughner had posted material on the internet related to his political views". Whatever is decided, the paragraph on Loughner's internet activity could be reduced, and the rest of the section organised so that it doesn't present as a series of short, clipped paragraphs. See Manual of Style/Layout.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a paragraph on Palin, and she is mentioned seven times in the article and eight times in reference source titles, though she is not mentioned at all in the lead. Either she is important, and so should be mentioned in the lead, or the focus on her in the article is disproportionate and should be reduced.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Obama's speech is mentioned, but not the other memorials.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  13:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC) I've now done that one.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  13:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So now Palin is mentioned in the lead, and I talked about some of Loughner's mental instability, which keeps his getting kicked out of college and attempt to enlist in the US Army in this article. Anything else? I can do more tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've trimmed the suspect section, and added in the lead that he had a fixation on Giffords. There are multiple cites in places that will need to be looked into as part of ongoing development of the article, and perhaps a little more detail on the political reaction could be summarised in the lead, however I feel that the article satisfies GA criteria, so will list as a Good Article.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  15:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for everything! We will certainly look into other ways to improve this article, such as those, especially if we ever agree to take this to FA (I definitely won't nominate this article for FA until there's consensus on the article talk page to do that). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Muboshgu. Thank you again. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)