Talk:Elon Musk/GA1

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

Reviewer: Elliot321 (talk · contribs) 23:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Initial comments
Was checking out your profile (after seeing your FA nom of Huey Long, ofc) and noticed you had nominated this for GA. I'll have a full review in the next few days. Initial impressions are good (except for the merge requests, though that looks like it'll be resolved soon and isn't an issue with the current article really). Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 23:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * When do you expect to initiate the review proper? Thank you for volunteering. QRep2020 (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

List (initial impressions)

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

Note: this is not the full review, this is a summary after reading the article fully for the first time.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Some minor grammar issues, will address later in the full review. Structure is OK. Generally an "in popular culture" section would be inappropriate, but in this case it's reasonable, so, yay!
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * All of this looks good from my first impressions.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Not seeing issues here.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Looks neutral enough, which is impressive given his numerous controversies.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * The merges into the page makes it appear unstable, I don't feel right passing this while those are unresolved. Also, the talkpage looks pretty contentious. Not instantly failing, but this is a concern.
 * Yeah, the talk page has given me plenty of headaches... ~ HAL  333  20:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like these were taken care of. Thanks, HAL! QRep2020 (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, history indicates that the Talk page will always be a contentious space. There are regular suggestions to include fanciful or even verifiably incorrect statements that need to be "nipped in the bud", not to mention the venerating remarks that appear powered by the fan fervor that pervades anything related to Musk. QRep2020 (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a Sisyphean task. ~ HAL  333  18:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * File:Elon Musk Royal Society (crop1).jpg is good (free with OTRS); File:Elon Musk 2015.jpg is good (from Flickr, doesn't appear to be license laundering); File:PBHS-facade.jpg looks fine; File:SpaceX CEO Elon Musk visits N&NC and AFSPC (190416-F-ZZ999-006) (cropped).jpg is clearly public domain and says so at the source; File:Elon Musk, Tesla Factory, Fremont (CA, USA) (8765031426).jpg is good (Flickr, not license laundering); File:Pair of 2009 SolarCity Dodge Sprinters.JPG is ok (has a weird license note but whatever); File:Elon Musk and the Neuralink Future.jpg is good (Flickr, not license laundering); File:Elon Musk Accelerates the Boring (45716125474).jpg is good (Flickr, not license laundering); File:4547274 Thai rescue workers positioning a pipe for the pumping operation in the Tham Luang cave.jpg is good (source identifies file as work of US govt employee); File:Vice President Pence at the Kennedy Space Center (49946170631).jpg is good (posted by US govt to Flickr); and File:CRS-9 (28358955546).jpg is fine though its use is iffy.
 * All the files have appropriate licenses, though I strongly question the use of File:CRS-9 (28358955546).jpg as a stand-in for Musk's profile picture for a Tweet. A cropped version, either of this or of his face, would be preferable (I mean, his avatar when tweeting would be ideal, but that might not be properly licensed, and wouldn't be appropriate NFCC).
 * Done. ~ HAL  333  20:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall this article is in decent shape and has a lot going for it. I'll give the full review over the coming few days though you may want to fix up some minor things and try to resolve the merges and disputes you have with editors on the talkpage - the article should be relatively stable to pass as a GA. I could wait for you to resolve those issues, if necessary, to continue reviewing. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 07:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I was able to wrap up the merge discussions. ~ HAL  333  17:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks, I'll continue with the full review (your ping failed as my username changed and I forgot to check back here until now - sorry!) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries! =) ~ HAL  333  18:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I will volunteer in fixing grammatical issues. Wretchskull (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Childhood and family

 * Footnote 17 (bundling other footnotes) is a weird citation style and so is having three refs on the statement (is "Musk has a younger brother, Kimbal (born 1972), and a younger sister, Tosca (born 1974)." really that controversial?)
 * ✅ Removed. QRep2020 (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see a source connecting Joshua Haldeman to Musk, though it looks like some exist in Maye Musk.
 * Done. Wretchskull (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Source claims "Elon mostly lived with his father, who says he owned thoroughbred horses, a yacht, several houses and a Cessna. One of their homes was in Waterkloof, a leafy suburb of Pretoria that was popular with foreign diplomats." - which is not the same as "Musk lived mostly with his father in the suburbs of Pretoria" imo - several homes, and only one specified to be in the Pretoria suburbs.
 * ✅ Fixed. QRep2020 (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ref 21 (Rolling Stone) is unnecessarily repeated.
 * ✅ Removed. QRep2020 (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Education

 * Everything looks good here (AGF on the offline source).

I'll get to the next section tomorrow. So far no major issues. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Business career
(evidently, I'm bad at timeliness, sorry) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. Sometimes I'll forget to give follow-up comments at featured lists for months... ~ HAL  333  02:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Zip2

 * Everything here is OK, but confuses me. Wasn't he a founder? The organization of this company is unclear.
 * ✅ Clarified. Musk was a founder but never CEO. QRep2020 (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

X.com and PayPal

 * Perhaps Bill Harris should be a redlink?
 * Done. ~ HAL  333  02:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Does really need to be in a separate footnote?  would seem to work.
 * I feel like that interrupts the flow. ~ HAL  333  02:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Everything else is OK.

SpaceX
First paragraph
 * Mars Oasis just redirects to, so I'm not sure how useful of a link that is in this case.
 * Done. ~ HAL  333  02:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "Elon Musk's Space Dream Almost Killed Tesla" doesn't mention that they're Dnepr missiles.
 * Removed. ~ HAL  333  21:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, the ref is unnecessarily duplicated with no intermediate refs.
 * Done. ~ HAL  333  21:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Is a primary source really necessary? The NYT source looks sufficient.
 * Done. ~ HAL  333  21:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Second paragraph
 * The hashtag in "#dearMoon project" is probably unnecessary.
 * Done. ~ HAL  333  02:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "Two years later, SpaceX launched its first manned flight" I would just say "in 2020"
 * Done. ~ HAL  333  02:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Third paragraph
 * I don't see a source for development starting in 2015, from skimming the NYT and Space.com refs.
 * Reuters source added. ~ HAL  333  17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * seems ambiguous, maybe phrase it like (that's not a great phrasing, but I think you get my point - I initially assumed that SpaceX had to pay subsidies, not that they received them.
 * Tried but it seemed awkward. Made note instead. ~ HAL  333  17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Tesla
First paragraph
 * Is the self-published source "The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (just between you and me)" necessary? There are numerous other refs on the same claim.
 * Done. ~ HAL  333  21:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Roadster should be linked to a relevant article?
 * Done. ~ HAL  333  21:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Quirky: The Remarkable Story of the Traits, Foibles, and Genius of Breakthrough Innovators Who Changed the World has an article (Quirky (book)) and should probably cite an individual page.
 * No apparent ref for.
 * Done. Updated and added citation. QRep2020 (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Second paragraph
 * Perhaps try to update the "as of 2019", though I can understand if that wouldn't be possible.
 * Not sure if CleanTechnica is a reliable source, and it has a tag - possibly ask at WP:RSP? Of course, finding a better source would work too.
 * Someone replaced it with Car and Driver, though I am not too certain if it is reliable or not. Wretchskull (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No ref for.
 * Done. Wretchskull (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

SEC lawsuit

 * Maybe "at a price of $420 a share, an alleged reference to marijuana" should be in a footnote? Feels more footnote-worthy (and ref 114 currently looks really awkward).
 * Totally agree. ~ HAL  333  02:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

SolarCity

 * The first CNET ref is a deadlink and should be marked as such.
 * Done. ~ HAL  333  17:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Is the self-published SolarCity ref needed?
 * Done. ~ HAL  333  17:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Same thing with CleanTechnica as above.
 * Done. ~ HAL  333  17:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Did Panasonic stop working with SolarCity, or did the factory close altogether? This is unclear.
 * Done. Panasonic pulled its workers. 21:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Is Musk still dealing with this lawsuit?
 * Yes. COVID-19 has delayed a lot of the suits that I've been paying attention to over the last few years. ~ HAL  333  02:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Neuralink

 * is pretty much directly copied from the Verge ref.
 * Fixed. What do you think now? Wretchskull (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * no longer looks like a copyvio but the phrasing feels a bit clunky. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reworded it and broke it down from 2 to 3 sentences. What do you think now? Rewording something about a narrow subject is rather difficult so tell me if you are still unsatisfied. Wretchskull (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * looks ok. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The Boring Company

 * "Elon Musk: 'Without tunnels, we will all be in traffic hell forever'" is a bad ref for - from the article: "No word on if “The Boring Company” is a real thing (or part of SpaceX of Tesla) or not".
 * Done. Added new citation. QRep2020 (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The Guardian and Bloomberg refs on "In early 2017, they began discussions with regulatory bodies and initiated construction of a 30-foot (9.1 m) wide, 50-foot (15 m) long, and 15-foot (4.6 m) deep "test trench" on the premises of SpaceX's offices as it required no permits" seem unnecessary.
 * Done. ~ HAL  333  17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Link "flamethrower"? Also, why is it in quotes? These are real things.
 * Linked. ~ HAL  333  17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In the usual "jocularity" that pervades much of what Musk is involved with, the product is actually named Not-A-Flamethrower: https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/10/17445838/boring-company-flamethrower-elon-musk-tweets-party QRep2020 (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * that doesn't mean it isn't a flamethrower, though. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 08:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. Will remove quotation marks. QRep2020 (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No need for the SPS on this statement.

(ping) I've done more of the review. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we've covered this round now? QRep2020 (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * yeah, I'll continue with the next sections soon (feel free to ping me btw, easier than remembering to check back here and my watchlist is kinda messy). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 12:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hyperloop

 * ? This whole sentence is clunky.
 * Done. ~ HAL  333  21:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * - should there be a comma here? (this has an ambiguous meaning without one, and I feel like the one intended - discussing the concept in the previous sentence - requires one)
 * That is correct; done. Wretchskull (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The ABC news ref on doesn't back up the content, and the other two are primary sources - this isn't ideal (though if another ref can't be found, removing the ABC one work)
 * I replaced it with a secondary journal. I have one problem though: page one in the source, chapter "II. Hyperloop", only partially supports the article text. The rest of the source stating that it was included in Musk's blog is only shown in the corresponding reference that the source text supports the statement with (reference [4] in the source). Should page 1 and the references-page be included in the article ref or should a chapter syntax be used in the ref? I've tried the latter but it doesn't work because of an error I can't seem to fix. Wretchskull (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * this looks fine, though it only supports it being published to the Tesla blog - not SpaceX. I'd just remove "and SpaceX" and be done with it. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd love to do that, but the problem is that I see SpaceX get mentioned many times in many reliable sources. However, these never tell anything in-depth about the competition and mostly mention winners. I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Wretchskull (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * the primary source [156] isn't needed here. The ref in the middle of the sentence includes the $6 billion cost
 * Done. Wretchskull (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * the source says that "supporters claim" this, not that it's necessarily true. It's probably due weight to mention it, but it doesn't look like zdnet did an independent analysis.
 * no reference for this sentence (the one in the next sentence doesn't verify it)

OpenAI

 * Everything here looks fine.

Tham Luang cave rescue and defamation case

 * Impressively, everything here looks fine. also lmfao I didn't realize what a mess that was
 * The whole fiasco deserves its own subarticle, but a consensus decided to merge. Oh well. ~ HAL  333  21:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh, it should have its own article! Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

2018 Joe Rogan podcast appearance

 * No reference for the quote.
 * Removed. He is already quoted defending himself later. ~ HAL  333  21:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Link 60 Minutes?
 * Done. ~ HAL  333  21:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Music ventures

 * Primary source on is unnecessary.
 * Done. ~ HAL  333  21:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Include some details about Harambe? The sources linked mention the incident, so the article should too - and link to Killing of Harambe, of course.
 * Done. QRep2020 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * this ref is kinda redundant, but not really a big deal.

Donations and non-profits

 * Link Big Green (non-profit company)?
 * Done. ~ HAL  333  21:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * no reference on this.
 * Done. Added reference. QRep2020 (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

here's some more to work on. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think we are up to date now. QRep2020 (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * gotcha, I'll continue today/tomorrow (looking good so far!) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * a kindly reminder. QRep2020 (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 12:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Wealth

 * Image looks to be appropriately licensed - perhaps the graph extension could be used instead, but it's fine.
 * First paragraph is fine, both sources look OK.
 * I don't see how is verified - the source writes  but I don't see more specificity there.
 * The rest of the second paragraph is appropriately sourced.
 * is grammatically incorrect ("receive" should be "receives")
 * uh, what? Why were they sued? I'd write another sentence or two about this somewhere.
 * Removed instead. It didn't really add much. ~ HAL  333  02:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps link "cash poor" to cash poor?
 * this is kinda redundant to the above paragraph - and we don't need these three refs. The bloomberg ref on the previous sentence verifies this.
 * The rest of this looks fine.
 * Addressed the rest. ~ HAL  333  02:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for how long it's been taking me with this review (I'm in the middle of finals, but that's no excuse for how slow I've been) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 13:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'm in a busy stretch irl as well and have taken my time on this nominatin as well (evidenced by Wretchskull and QRep2020's much appreciated stepping in). On a side note, I wonder if we're a in the running for the longest open GA review... ~ HAL  333  02:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * perhaps! Not sure how that would reflect on me, though... Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Views

 * Overall this does seem like a good summary of the article Views of Elon Musk.
 * This section has been the most controversial by far, hence the larger number of references, given that, can most of them remain? ~ HAL  333  14:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Politics

 * this is fine, though the second ref seems unnecessary
 * Removed. ~ HAL  333  14:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * seems a bit synth/overreferency.
 * the second ref is just his Twitter and unnecessary. Though, I can't easily verify this from the BBC link, that page is incredibly long. Perhaps try finding a better source for this?
 * Addressed this one and the previous one about Trump relation. QRep2020 (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * more overreferencing - trim this down to two refs at most.
 * This has been pretty controversial over on the talk page and multiple references were added to show that it was due. In that case, can they remain? ~ HAL  333  14:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it might make sense to do bundling here, if it's absolutely necessary to have this many references. However, I do think that GA noms are a good time to trim reference-cruft that comes up in situations like this. Do what you like, but the current situation feels excessive. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 09:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * only the first ref seems to actually discuss this.
 * Done. ~ HAL  333  14:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * this isn't an issue, but I'd consider mentioning why he's actually against it - in that it hurts him as a business owner (pretty sure I've seen this info in RS).
 * He is against the practice because short-selling, say Tesla, amounts to an effort to profit from his companies' loss of market value as exemplified by their stock prices. Towards this end, short-sellers often organize and publish "oppo research" and "dirt" about the companies that they believe to be currently overvalued or straight up fraudulent; there is a large short-seller contingency in TSLAQ for instance that is constantly publicizing their findings and pet theories. Naturally, he does not like any of this.


 * With that said, I'm not sure how to get across all of that tersely and with sources. QRep2020 (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I do feel like it's important context, though. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 09:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I tried my best! QRep2020 (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19

 * no need for five refs here.
 * or four here - trim these
 * more overreferencing
 * Addressed the three of these. QRep2020 (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, is there any secondary source that could be cited for the included Tweet, instead of the Tweet itself?
 * The Tweet template usually includes a link to the actual Tweet. As long as it is sourced by secondsry RS in body, it's fine imo. ~ HAL  333  14:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 09:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Artificial intelligence and public transit

 * Why are AI and public transit in the same section? If this is just "miscellany", why not just put it at the top of the "Views" section isntead of its own subsection?
 * I think this is because Musk has projects/companies based on "solving problems" he sees in AI and mass transit and so they speak to important acts of his and so are serve more than incidental views of his. QRep2020 (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * - I'd extend the link to cover all the text of "potential dangers of artificial intelligence" instead of just "potential dangers"
 * overreferencing
 * Addressed these latter two. QRep2020 (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

here's some more, when you're ready. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 08:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal life
Overall, not many issues here though some minor areas for improvement.
 * all of this is fine content-wise, though refs should probably be trimmed
 * Done. ~ HAL  333  17:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * same here, even for a controversial statement, four refs is a bit much.
 * ✅ ~ HAL  333  18:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * LOL on the baby name (this section is fine)
 * maybe mention why he decided to move to Texas?
 * Done. ~ HAL  333  17:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You have a knack for asking the controversy-laden questions! ;) I'll see what I can find in some source material. QRep2020 (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not found anything that I believe will work to explain his reasoning here and I do not want to hold up the GAN further. Maybe we can table this point for now? QRep2020 (talk) 07:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

In popular culture
Actually a decent IPC section! Though Elon Musk in popular culture could use some help, that's out of scope here.
 * I'd mention him hosting SNL, that was kinda a big deal.
 * ✅ ~ HAL  333  18:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Recognition
Again, List of awards and honors received by Elon Musk could use some improvement though that's not in scope to this review. This section seems to do well at only mentioning the most relevant awards, so I don't see any issues either.

Notes and references
No issues here, well within the bounds of acceptable citevar. A few CS1 errors, might wanna fix those.

List (after review and improvements)

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

passing the article. Nice job! Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * As mentioned below, uses leadcite - the lead accurately summarizes the important parts of the body. All other criteria are fine too.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * After extensive review, the sourcing situation has improved to be sufficient for a GA (assuming good faith for the offline sources cited). Leadcite is applied appropriately. As for copyvio - earwig's findings look initially disturbing, but only because there are a significant number of websites that have mirrored this article. When looking at reliable sources, the only things that look suspicious are quotes - which, well, copying those is kinda the point.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Sections that could be overly detailed are instead split into subarticles as summary style dictates.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Somewhat impressive, given the article, but it certainly seems neutral.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Seems to have stabilized.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Nice job on getting this to GA - thanks for hanging in with me for the long time it took to review this (hopefully future reviews will not be so lengthy).
 * Nice job on getting this to GA - thanks for hanging in with me for the long time it took to review this (hopefully future reviews will not be so lengthy).