Talk:Dance for You/GA1

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

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 16:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jivesh. I'll be reviewing this article for GA. It could take me up to a week to finish the review. Moisejp (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No disambiguation links. Refs #2, 9 and 30 may have "dead-link" issues, but I'll look at those more carefully when I get into the review. Moisejp (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Addressed. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 07:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * No problems here.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Good level of coverage.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * One image from Wiki Commons, another with a proper FUR, both with captions. I have a comment about the video screen capture caption (see below). The sound clip has a proper rationale and is under 30 seconds—good.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments (up to the end of Critical reception):
 * Infobox: "4 (Deluxe Edition) track listing" Should this be "4 (Deluxe Edition) bonus disc track listing"? The deluxe edition also includes all the songs on the regular edition, doesn't it? Or you could call it "4 (Deluxe Edition) track listing" as it is now, and list all the songs, including the ones on the regular edition.
 * You are actually right but I don't know how to fix that. I will ask the one who created the template. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 08:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "It is instrumentally complete" What does this mean?
 * It means all the instrumentation used. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 08:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I don't think that's very clear from what is written. But I am trying out a c/e. See what you think of it. Moisejp (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I like it. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 09:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "its aural resemblance to" Songs are always aural. How about "its similarity to"?
 * Actually reviewers have asked me in the pass to specify what are similar. That's why I always mention it now. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 08:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * But I don't think "aural" answers how—it just means they "sound" similar. Well, in what way do they "sound" similar? If you source doesn't specify, I don't think you ought to specify with empty words like "aural". Moisejp (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 09:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Background and composition: "It was made available on the deluxe edition of 4, which is sold exclusively at Target Corporation, in the United States." The second part of this sentence is pretty much word-for-word the same as the lead. How would you feel about rewriting it?
 * Done. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 08:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "In "Dance for You", Knowles, as the female protagonist, speaks of the love she has for her man and how down she is for him." I really think "how down she is for him" is too casual for an encyclopedia.
 * Lol. That's so true. Re-worded. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 08:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Echoing Vena's sentiments, Marc Hogan of Spin magazine added that the lyrics of "Dance for You" detail a "triumphantly monogamous relationship"." Technically, he's not "adding" anything, unless he makes specific reference in his article to Vena's article. One idea: "Marc Hogan of Spin magazine described the song as detailing a 'triumphantly monogamous relationship' "
 * Done. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 08:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "She further states that she really cares about his heart, has a lot of valuable things to say, and that for all these reasons, she is going to dance for him." Does this mean she has a lot of valuable things to say? And that one reason she is going to dance for him is that she has a lot of valuable things to say? I don't really follow that logic. Also, it would be better if this sentence followed a more parallel structure among the three clauses—I suggest adding "she" before "has a lot of valuable things to say" (if that's what it means).
 * Yes it is. You need to watch the video. You won't regret it. And she is five months pregnant in it. She in unbeatable at dancing without or without a baby. Lol. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 08:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "He favored the instrumentation used" Where in the article does it say he liked it? All I could find was "the bluesy guitar and smoky organ"—which isn't clearly enough praise.


 * Okay. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 08:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll check the Music video and References section tomorrow or soon. Moisejp (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

More comments:
 * Jivesh, I'm afraid I may have gotten carried away with my comments below. They may go above and beyond what is required for a GA. You could probably pass the "reasonably well written" criteria without making all of the changes below. Some of them are suggestions about how you could reorganize the information more effectively to improve the article, regardless of GA requirements. Well, anyway, you can let me know what you think.
 * About the video screen capture caption: "Knowles, dressed in a sexy outfit, in the music video". What would you think about changing "sexy outfit" to a description of what she is wearing or to some other description. "Sexy" can be subjective. It could be interpreted as being used in a quasi-objective way meaning "what is conventionally considered sexy"—but we can't be sure that everyone will interpret it that way. Or something like, "The video for for 'Halo', in which Knowles wears garters, a wrap dress and satin shorts, has been described by reviewers as 'sexy', 'sultry' and 'naughty'."
 * Done. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 06:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And wow, did her song "Halo" stick in your head? :D Did you listen to it? Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 06:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ""Dance For You" is the seventh video debut from 4." Can "debut" be cut from this sentence? It makes perfect sense without "debut" and I'm not sure exactly what it means with the addition of the word.
 * Done. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 06:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Synopsis: "They were apparently there the whole time, but they could not be seen because it was too dark." If you want to keep this sentence, I won't object, but I was wondering if it really adds anything valuable to the synopsis. But it's up to you...
 * It does, perhaps you will have an idea about the reason if you watch the video. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 06:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did watch the video a couple of weeks ago before I started this review. :-) Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Reception: "channels a 1920s-inspired look". This piece of info sounds like it would fit more nicely in the Background and concept section above—it's parallel to discussions of the video being film noir-inspired. Or you could just remove it. So does "vintage, New York-styled office". By contrast, the "seductively" mention in the sentence does match the rest of Reception, so it's good there.
 * What about if I rename this section as Reception and analysis. I have seen editors doing this very often. Even, I do it. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 06:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Any "analysis" doesn't seem very deep here. I don't have a very strong opinion either way. Moisejp (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What if you put these two quotes side by side: "It's a mostly private dance—until all those other ladies show up." and "It's all very sultry and intimate to a point—that point being the moment she unveils a line-up of back-up dancers." It's jarring for the reader to see basically the same thing said in a different place without any acknowledgement that the point has already been made. But if you put the two together, linked with a word such as "Likewise", it makes the point all the more solid.
 * Okay. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 06:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "For anyone who thinks the steamy classic film pairing of Bogey and Bacall could use a modern (or porno) update, noted pop star and film historian Beyoncé delivers in this latest clip." This is another case where you should be somehow connecting with the previous mention of Humphrey Bogart. To not to do so gives the article a lack of coherence. Or, if you can't smoothly put the two quotes together, cut one of them—a much better solution than ignoring that they are both there.
 * I need help with this. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 06:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * *I think the article is fine without the "Bogie and Baccall" quote. You're already quoting Leah Collins further down, and you already have so many reviews. I notice you have it in hidden text. If I were you, I'd just take it out—no one will miss it! Moisejp (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 05:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * An idea: How about an introduction at the start of the section, like a topic sentence, to the effect of "Many reviewers have commented on the sexiness displayed in the video." Then clump all the quotes that are about that together. Then you've got some structure to the section, instead of a bunch of random quotes that don't seem to be in any particular order.
 * Great. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 06:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I like what you've done with that. Good. Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :D Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 05:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Michael O'Connell of The Hollywood Reporter found Knowles' "trademark moves" in the video." If you do include this, I think you need another verb rather than "found". But even if you change it to "noted", the idea expressed here is so incomplete. What are her "trademark moves"? We don't know from this. It doesn't really add any good encyclopedic information. I would recommend cutting the sentence.
 * But that's why I put that on between quotes. Trademark moves here can mean the sexy dance routine Knowles is know for. I mean she used to preform sexy dance moves before her marriage, then kind of stopped for a while. But this video brought it again. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 06:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * *My point is, for the reader, the idea expressed is incomplete, and it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article. But, for GA level maybe the sentence isn't too intrusive. I don't think it's ideal, but if you have your heart set on keeping that line, I won't insist. Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are some more reviews that are essentially saying the same thing, or very similar things, and stylistically would be a lot stronger if they were clumped together:
 * *Donnelly also wrote, "The video carries the standard Bey DNA—wind machines, plunging necklines and lots of hair. Not that we're complaining."
 * *Essentially, it's just what you'd expect from the track's lyrics, and that's in no way a bad thing."
 * *Derek Johnson of Long Island Press commented that the video is "heating up the Internet and we're pretty sure we know why", referring to Knowles' figure.


 * Here are two more "film noir" mentions: "The video follows pretty literally from the song's theme, with Mrs. Jay-Z grinding sensuously in a superfluous film-noir setting." and ""sticks with the power of black and white to set the mood, which in this case is a naughty film noir vibe" Well, I'm not saying you definitely can't have any mention of "film noir" outside the Background and concept section. I'm just saying these are two more examples that highlight the possible overall lack of cohesiveness in the article.

Next I will look at the sources. Moisejp (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources:
 * "Knowles channels screen siren Marlene Dietrich in the video." (in the text and in the caption). This is a little too close to the words used in the source. Also, the caption and the text are almost exactly the same—it'd be nice if there was a little variety between them.
 * Done. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 07:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "It contains gasps and groans, such as "yes" and "aye's" in the background.[2][6]" I couldn't find this information in either [2] or [6].
 * The six is uneeded. the "yes" and "ayes" are the lyrics which are on the album booklet. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 07:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * " "Dance for You" was written by Knowles, Terius "The-Dream" Nash and Christopher "Tricky" Stewart, with production by Knowles and Nash.[2][3]" [2] doesn't seem to have info about "Dance for you" and the info given in [3] doesn't include all the info you have written. [3] says "The track was produced by The-Dream and features writing credits from Tricky Stewart as well as Beyoncé."
 * See the liner notes here. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 06:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * *Jivesh, for the two comments above, I don't understand your logic at all. The link for [2] doesn't have the lyrics on it, so even if it is an official online listing of the liner notes, that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't provide the lyrics that you are citing it for. Also, there is only writer/producer information for the regular version of the album, not for the deluxe version with the bonus tracks (no "Dance With You"), so I can't accept it as a source for that information, either. I don't doubt that the writer-producer information in your article is correct, but that doesn't change the need for a proper citation. Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have used the liner notes as I have done in other song articles by Beyonce. Check it. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 05:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, I added "(Deluxe edition)" to your source and I think it's OK now that you're citing the physical liner notes. Moisejp (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * " 'Dance for You' bears resemblance to Prince's work as well as Janet Jackson's.[7]" I see the J. Jackson comparison in the source, but I couldn't find anything about Prince. Moisejp (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 07:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So I better remove the line about groans and moaning? Lol. I will remove it. Hey I am so happy to know you watched the video. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 05:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's good that you removed the moans and groans, but you still need to do something about the writer and producer info cited to [2][3]. I don't suppose you or anyone you knows has a physical copy of this deluxe edition with the complete liner notes? In any case, you'll need to find a new source for the info somewhere. Moisejp (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Continuing along:
 * "it is about showing appreciation and gratitude.[8][9]" / "In the chorus, she states the things she will do to show her appreciation to her love interest,[8]" Ref #8 doesn't say anything about appreciation or gratitude.
 * I believe that it what the writer wanted to say. I tried to write it in my own words. I changed "pleasing ..." to appreciation and gratitude is in FN 9. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 06:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be that from the lyrics, one can detect some appreciation, but from what the author of the article wrote, we can't get that. The fact that she wants to please him doesn't necessarily imply any "appreciation". By the way, is there any difference between "appreciation" and "gratitude". Oh, I see as I'm writing this you are doing some editing of that part, so this may no longer be valid. Oh well, I'll save it for now and then check out your edits carefully. If this issue has already been solved, you can ignore this comment. Moisejp (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm satisfied with how you have reworked that part. Good. Moisejp (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "In "Dance for You", Knowles, as the female protagonist, speaks of the love she has for her man and how devoted she is to him.[10]" The source simply says, "In the song, Beyonce sings about treating her man." That seems like a bit of a jump to what you have.
 * OK, you have fixed this. Good. Moisejp (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "With wavy hair and winged eyeliner, Knowles is dressed in a thigh-length leather trench coat and high stockings.[10]" I don't see this information in the source. Or this: "After walking inside the office, she immediately strips off her coat."
 * I fixed this (removed ref). Moisejp (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Similarly, a writer of the website Idolator commented, "'Dance for You' doesn't compare to the spectacle of say, the 'Run the World (Girls)' clip, but it is effective. [...] It's a mostly private dance—until all those other ladies show up."[13]" I think you must have mixed up your sources. There is no mention of this (or else they've changed their content since you looked at it). Really, Jivesh, you should take more care with your sources before you nominate something for GA. So far a very large number of the refs I've checked have had problems. I mean, for an article this size it's normal for there to be maybe a couple of mistakes throughout the references, but the reviewer shouldn't have to be pointing out this many instances where the info doesn't match. I hope there won't be too many more instances. I'm going to call it a night tonight and try to continue this tomorrow. If you're not confident that there are no more source mistakes, if you wanted to, you could double check before I continue this. Talk to you again soon, Moisejp (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This one didn't end up being your fault after all. Sorry about that. Moisejp (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 06:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I have mixed up all the sources. And the synopsis actually do not require sourcing. So, I will remove all of them. I don't even know why I put sources there. :D Actually, a synopsis id\s like a plot. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 06:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this is the worst and hastiest article I have ever written. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 07:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "The video is shot in black-and-white and is set in a dimly lit and smoky office, where Knowles puts on a private show for a detective played by Brett G. Smith.[26]" I don't see this info in the source. OK, I see you wrote "I will remove all of them". If you remove them you have to be careful what kind of info you include. Things that can be seen only from the video are OK, but info like the actor's name can't be gleaned from just watching the video, unless there are credits. I'm watching the video again now and not seeing any credits.
 * You should merge refs #22 and 28. They are the exact same story by the same author given different titles in different publications.
 * Done My love is love (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Similarly, a writer of the website Idolator commented, "'Dance for You' doesn't compare to the spectacle of say, the 'Run the World (Girls)' clip, but it is effective. [...] It's a mostly private dance—until all those other ladies show up."[14] The writer also called Knowles a femme fatale in the video.[14]" The source is still wrong.
 * No it isn't. Please check again. My love is love (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, My love is love. Hmm, well I can't see it there. Am I not looking in the right corner of the page or something? The only text I see is this: Beyonce’s “Dance For You” video looks to be sizzling with retro style — not the 90s day-glo fun of her flirty “Party” video or the 60s mod fashion of “Countdown”, but a more classic seductive look that feels inspired by the 40s or film noir. In two video stills that surfaced today, the busy B is seen wearing thigh-high nylons and garters as she stands in an open doorway, and again as she dances in front of a vintage-style fan. Get your sneak peek at the visuals for the 4 bonus track below. It’s difficult to tell from the photos, but it’s possible this was shot well in advance of Beyonce’s baby bump becoming as pronounced as it is today. “Dance For You”, which we spun in our post about Beyonce’s Live At Roseland DVD, is a dangerously slick slow-jam co-produced by The-Dream, and the early visuals from the video show she plans to conduct herself accordingly. Is B about to out-do herself? Let us know on Facebook, Twitter or in the comments." Moisejp (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol. I don't know what is happening. In the source, it says:

It’s a rainy night as Beyonce enters her film-noir-style “Dance For You” video. Outside, a siren wails like a tired baby. And like any femme fatale in those old flicks, Beyonce’s nothing but trouble from the minute she walks through the door (and immediately starts to remove items of clothing). Over a boudoir-inspired beat by The-Dream, Beyonce proceeds to work her way toward her intended target — or is it victim? — a private eye sporting a fedora and tie. Is she packing heat like an oven door? Watch the Alan Ferguson-directed clip below.

'''As Beyonce videos go, “Dance For You” doesn’t compare to the spectacle of say, the “Run The World (Girls)” clip, but it is effective. Watch the tension build as B twirls across the office before shoving a stack of papers off the desk. It’s a mostly private dance — until all those other ladies show up.'''

If Beyonce walked into that office hoping to score a discount on the detective’s services, we certainly think she earned it. (And if you’d like to earn the video, it’s included on her Live At Roseland DVD, which you can win in our contest.) Let us know if “Dance For You” stacked up on Facebook, Twitter or in the comments.
 * ??? Are we looking at the same website. Ref #14, right? http://idolator.com/6084631/beyonce-dance-for-you-video-first-look Is it possible it shows up differently for people with cookies or something? I can't explain this. Moisejp (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just did a google search and I got this: http://idolator.com/6091192/beyonce-dance-for-you-video (slightly different, no "first look") Moisejp (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They are different. and . Lol. Jivesh 1205  (Talk) 05:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe it's a question of cookies, or depending where in the world a person is the website may automatically redirect you from "first look" to "no first look"? Those are the only explanations I can think of. Moisejp (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that you are right. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 05:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you're probably aware of this, but if you don't end up using "Leah Collins of Canadian magazine Dose wrote, "For anyone who thinks the steamy classic film pairing of Bogey and Bacall could use a modern (or porno) update, noted pop star and film historian Beyoncé delivers in this latest clip." " don't forget to take it out. I'm mentioning this now because I might not notice it if I check again, since it's hidden. Moisejp (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 05:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I will not be here for three days or more. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 05:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you contact the person who made the template about the infobox info for 4 (Deluxe Edition)?
 * I still have not been able to find out who created it. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 05:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In my last batch of copy-edits I changed "girls" to "women" to describe the back-up dancers. Editor CyanideKnowledge reverted this, writing "it doesn't matter". I believe it definitely does matter. In some circles, using "girls" to talk about grown women may be considered OK, but it's a casual usage, it's not neutral, encyclopedic language. Moisejp (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 05:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, i have taken care of this. Moisejp (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I will have a look at this tomorrow. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 17:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please strike the points I have addressed. There is too much to read. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 05:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's funny. I was doing that just as you wrote that. I mean, I didn't see that comment when I started crossing them out, I just thought, "Oh, there's a lot of comments, maybe I should be crossing these out." We were thinking along the same lines! Moisejp (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will be finishing this today. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 05:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This happens very very very often with me. Lol. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 05:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Just clearing up the first comment on this review about the track listing, it cannot be changed because it is taken directly from what is applied in the "Album" field. It could, although, be changed to "4 (bonus disc)" if that would make it better. — Status  &#x7B;talk contribs  05:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, that change is great. Moisejp (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks ^^^ . Nikki, do you think that the article is now GA-worthy? I know this review was long. It is the worst of all I have ever written. As soon as I saw it got a video, I jumped on it. For me it was like the green light to create it as a video would make it pass WP:GNG. I will never write an article hastily. I have learned from this. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 05:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * All right, I'm pretty satisfied with everything, just one last concern. So are you saying that for ref #15 ("Beyonce’s 'Dance For You' Video: First Look") you don't see the "dangerously slick slow-jam" part? If some people in the world don't see that, because it jumps right to the "not first look" version, how would you feel about cutting "Idolator's staff members wrote that "Dance for You" is a "dangerously slick slow-jam".[15]"? Let me know what you think, or if you have a better solution. Moisejp (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see that. Lol. I can paste everything there if needed. :D Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 07:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's in the third and last paragraph below the second image/video: "“Dance For You”, which we spun in our post about Beyonce’s Live At Roseland DVD, is a dangerously slick slow-jam co-produced by The-Dream, and the early visuals from the video show she plans to conduct herself accordingly. Is B about to out-do herself? Let us know on Facebook, Twitter or in the comments." Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 07:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, sounds good. I am passing this article! Moisejp (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)