Talk:George McGovern/GA1

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 11:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I will review.  ★ ★KING RETROLORD★ ★  11:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Review
Feel free to tag things ✅ or ❌ as required,  ★ ★KING RETROLORD★ ★  12:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) "600‑person" Could this be removed, unless there is some reason why it should stay?  ★ ★KING RETROLORD★ ★  12:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) * It is there because McGovern's growing up in small-town, rural America was a key part of his background and psychological makeup, one that book and news stories often mention. So I wanted to give the populations of these towns back then (as opposed to now, which is what readers would get by clicking through).
 * 3) " moved to Calgary" Change to Calrgary, Canada?  ★ ★KING RETROLORD★ ★  12:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) * I've changed it to Calgary, Alberta, since earlier in the sentence there is already a reference to Canada.
 * 5) " a community of 12,000" Remove please  ★ ★KING RETROLORD★ ★  12:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) * Same response as above.
 * 7) "unapproved behavior" What does this mean?  ★ ★KING RETROLORD★ ★  12:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) * Something that authority figures (parents, school, church) would not approve of. I've changed it to "reproachable" which hopefully gets this across.
 * 9) "out of action for two months" Too colloquial  ★ ★KING RETROLORD★ ★  12:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) * Changed to "unable to come to his office for two months" since he did do some work from his sick bed.

Thats all for now.  ★ ★KING RETROLORD★ ★  12:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for taking on the review. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Review pt.2
Is on its way.  ★ ★KING RETROLORD★ ★  03:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Is here!
 * 1) "may well have saved his chances" Is a bit too colloquial, can you rewrite?  ★ ★King∽~Retrolord★ ★  04:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) * Changed to "may have preserved his chance of winning".
 * 3) "1967 his ADA senate score was 92"What does this mean?  ★ ★King∽~Retrolord★ ★  04:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) * Changed to "through 1967 he had voted in accordance with the rated positions of the ADA 92 percent of the time". The ADA acronym is introduced earlier in the "U.S. House of Representatives" section.
 * 5) "Meanwhile the Washington, D.C., resident was paying tuition for his own daughter to attend Bethesda, Maryland, public schools, which were only 3 percent black" What does this mean?
 * 6) * Improved the source to be more contemporaneous and rewritten to be clearer: "A 1971 60 Minutes report by Mike Wallace, about liberal politicians and journalists advocating integrated schooling but avoiding it for their children, included McGovern. It detailed the senator's support of desegregation busing even while the Washington, D.C., resident was paying non-resident tuition for his own daughter to attend Bethesda, Maryland, public schools, which were only 3 percent black. McGovern responded that where he sent his children to school was a private matter.[142]" Wasted Time R (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) "by a more than two-to-one" Spelling,  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  03:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) * Now fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still going over this article, it is quite the read.  ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★  03:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Criteria 3b
This article is very, very long and very, very detailed. The criteria states that the article should stay "focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". That is my problem with this article. While the article's prose is undoubtedly of high quality, there is simply too much. Would you be able to engage in some (aggressive) trimming of the article? And by that, I mean cutting it down by 10-15%. Is this possible?  ★ ★King∽~Retrolord★ ★  04:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ran out of time this morning, will address this tonight. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not make any aggressive reductions to the article, but it's a fair question, so let me explain my view. McGovern had a very long, important career with several significant aspects.  He's not just a losing presidential nominee and a symbol for a liberal ideology - which is what most people remember him as and what he is often caricatured as - but also was an otherwise very successful politician in what would now be called a "red" state, and also someone who helped lead a movement against a controversial war, and also someone whose actions changed the way presidential politics are run, and someone who made a huge difference in the fights against hunger and poor nutrition.  The article goes into a certain level of detail about all of these, and thus yes it will tend to be on the long side.


 * But not that long in context; it's roughly the same length as the articles on other well-known presidential losers such as Ted Kennedy, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Mitt Romney (one of which is FA and the other two are GA). And that's just politicians - this article is only modestly longer than the GA one on Taylor Swift, and she's only 23 years old!  Well, that's Wikipedia for you; the norm has been towards longer articles in general.  Note that "real" authors have treated McGovern at length; there's one biography of him up through 1971, several books have been written about his 1972 presidential campaign, one whole book was written about his little-known 1984 presidential campaign, and the first biography to cover his whole life is coming out starting next year and will be a two-volume work.


 * And the reader's interest is, I think, well-served by the structure of a Wikipedia article. No one has to read the whole thing top to bottom in one sitting.  Some readers will only the look at the lead and that's fine; it gives a good summary of McGovern's accomplishments, successes and failures.  Some readers will be interested in a certain part of his life - his efforts against hunger, or the Eagleton debacle, or his WWII experiences, or whatever - and can click to that part and later read or skim other parts.  Some readers will read through some of the article at one time, go away and do something else, then come back to it at a different time (just like a library book, only there's no due date for return).  Some readers will be interested in the Notes that give further explanations while many readers will ignore them.  And so forth.  But one thing no reader can see is something isn't in the article at all.  And this is especially a concern for articles about controversial figures - readers will think "This article didn't mention X - it must be biased!"  I've been working on political biographies here for eight years now and I've come to the firm conclusion that it's best to include all things of significance, good bad or in between, meaning that every reader gets to "see" the part of the person they think they know, but then also find out about parts they didn't know.


 * So anyway, for all these reasons I think the length of the article is appropriate. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

New reviewer
Retrolord has been indefinitely blocked, but I can finish this one up. I should have my comments posted in the next 3-7 days; sorry for the delay in your review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem, and thanks for taking up the review. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm about halfway through the article at this point, and so far it looks great. I didn't know a lot about McGovern before I started, and have genuinely enjoyed reading this, which I can say of few of my reviews. It's very well written, comprehensive, and well sourced--an FA nomination seems like the logical next step. I'd love to see this one on the front page. I'll try to finish this before the end of the day, as I know I've kept you waiting on this; I appreciate your patience.


 * Thanks again for stepping in, and no rush on finishing it. GA nominators get to learn the value of patience :-)

The biggest issue I see here, like the previous reviewer, is the length, which I've addressed in a separate section below. However, I don't consider this a required action point for GA status, so you can feel free to disregard my comments.

Points that do seem GA-related (mostly) are listed as bullet points here:


 * I've made some tweaks as I went; feel free to revert any with which you disagree.
 * So far they've generally been for the better, thanks for making them. The only one I've restored is "McGovern sought elective office himself", which to me makes for a less jolting transition from the previous section.  If you feel strongly about it, however, I'm okay with removing it again.
 * No problem. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "United Nations-based" -- I'm not sure this is the best phrase, since it's not really a place--maybe "UN-run" or "UN-coordinated" or some such? or just "the United Nations' World Food Programme"? (Note that this phrase occurs twice)
 * I've changed both to "United Nations-run".


 * "less fundamental" -- should this be "less fundamentalist"? Wikilinking fundamentalist might be helpful, too.
 * I've changed the word. I've added a link to Methodism, which didn't have one in the text, but I'm not confident that any of our articles on fundamentalism cover the differences in the Methodist case, so I'm reluctant to link that.


 * "noted historian" -- "noted" is mild peacocking per WP:PEACOCK; I'd suggest simply writing "historian" and letting the fact that his professor is wikilinked speak for itself
 * Academia works by "peacocking", though, and almost all sources discussing historians like these will use terms like "noted" or "distinguished". And with over four million articles, just having one isn't indication enough of an indication of importance.  I'm inclined to leave this the way it is.
 * Okay. The peacocking policy applies primarily to an article's main subject anyway, so this probably isn't a GA issue. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * " and was the superior politician," -- this is enough of an opinion to need an in-text reference to its source, I think. ("According to Tom Brokaw/Anson...")
 * "possessing an acute sense of his political beliefs and the talent to articulate them" -- I'd suggest cutting this part, too; it's a bit subjective, and McGovern's thoughtfulness and articulateness are already well-established anyway.
 * Regarding these two points, I've gone back to the sources and rewritten the sentence as "But McGovern ran an effective campaign that showcased his political strengths of having firm beliefs and the ability to articulate them in debates and on the stump.[9][10]" I think this toning-down and refocus takes it out of opinion and into normal explanation of campaign results, which requires citing but not inline attribution (which I like to avoid unless really necessary). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * " an approach to the problem that showed "vigor, boldness, and imagination."" -- attribute to speaker
 * It was McGovern's quote, but that wasn't clear, and going back to the source shows that it missed was the focus of the legislation was, so I've dropped the quote and redone the sentence.


 * I'd suggest removing the "U.S. Congressional opposition to American involvement in wars and interventions" navigation box; I understand why it's here, but it seems a better fit for the McGovern-Hatfield article than the article on McGovern himself. This isn't a GA issue, though.
 * Strictly speaking, you're right, it's a nav template which should only be in the articles so named. But I've left it in because it gives a nice historical perspective to Congressional opposition to wars and adds a graphical element of interest to a swath of the article that has no images.  The same template is in a few other articles that aren't named in it, such as Opposition to the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and Opposition to the Iraq War, so this isn't the only one.
 * No problem, then. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't a GA action point, but just wanted to say, wow, that excerpt from McGovern's Vietnam speech is epic! (in a good way) -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, and his "That's what I meant to do" line afterward. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "However, one of the most memorable of the failings of McGovern's campaign was that" -- this interpretation, though I think pretty widespread, should be attributed to an author or authors in-text as an opinion; alternatively, you could just cut the phrase and state what happened. A third possibility is that McGovern himself stated this was his campaign's biggest turning point (happened to read this article recently), so you could attribute it to him perhaps: -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've taken it out. It was put in both another editor long ago, and I've kept it in out of deference to past work, but you're right, it really doesn't belong – the failing speaks for itself.


 * " caucuses states" -- should this be "caucus states"? -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, fixed.


 * "The incident was overheard and reported in the press, and became part of the legend of the campaign" This phrase is a little vague, and I'm not sure about calling his campaign a "legend", which has heroic overtones. Is the sense simply that it became a popular anecdote about the campaign? -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * More that there are certain things that live on in memory about a campaign, and this is one of them. I've replaced it with "tale", which is less heroic.


 * " "I don't know whether the incident won or lost me votes. It probably did both ... Some staff members frantically insisted that I issue a denial or retraction immediately. I did no such thing. I went to bed and slept soundly."" -- needs citation as a quotation
 * I started looking for a cite for this a while ago, and can't find one. I have a couple of books I still need to check, but for now I'm suspicious that it's a bogus quote (wouldn't be the first).  I've taken it out for now.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "with 53 percent of the vote" -- needs citation as a statistic -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Newspaper story now added as cite.


 * "He also said then that he had favored a pardon for Nixon even before Ford had, but the public remarks McGovern made in 1974 tend to contradict that." -- this seems like it needs a citation; pointing out a contradiction in someone's remarks is probably OR otherwise. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know of someone else who's pointed out this contradiction, so I've removed the whole sentence. It's kind of an empty claim for him to make 30 years after the fact.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * " It was also credited with improving school attendance" -- is there any way to make this more specific? -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "He was still in this Goodwill Ambassador position as of 2011" -- clearly needs update -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Later in 2007, several events were held at Dakota Wesleyan and in Washington, D.C., to celebrate McGovern's 85th birthday and the 35th anniversary of his nomination for president. Hundreds of former staff, volunteers, supporters and friends attended, along with public officials." -- though I've closed the more general length section below, this seems trivial enough that it falls under the GA criteria about digressions; I'd suggest cutting. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the purpose of the three "non-sections" toward the bottom of the article. These headers seem to exist simply to point the reader to List of awards and honors received by George McGovern, George McGovern in popular culture, and Electoral history of George McGovern. Electoral history of George McGovern could probably be moved as a "see also" or "main" up to one of the article's existing sections such as "US House of Representatives". The other two could simply be moved to See also. In any case, something should be done to make them into real sections or cut them per WP:LAYOUT, which discourages sections consisting of only short paragraphs. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A few years ago this is how it was typically done, but you're right, general style has changed. I've made all three into 'See also' entries. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Level of detail
One issue where I agree with RetroLord's previous review is that the article seems over-comprehensive. At 79kb readable prose, this goes past the point where WP:SIZE recommends a split or spinoff for all but a few articles. It's not off-subject or tangential, but it definitely pushes the upper limits of GA criterion 3b.

To put it another way, much of the detail is interesting, but there's simply so much of it that it won't be useful as an encyclopedia article for the majority of readers; it's going to take me three or four sessions to get through it as a reviewer. I do see your point many readers will still be able to find a specific moment in McGovern's life they wish to look up, but I think it's also important to have a generally accessible overview article. I'll make the bold statement that I think the ideal version of this article would be something like 35-40kb (about half the current length), with subarticles covering the more detailed version of McGovern's pre-political life, etc.; McGovern just isn't a topic with the sweep of, say, the American Civil War that needs a massive entry just to cover the basic facts. (And to put this in perspective, the Civil War article is actually shorter than this one, as are my recent reviews Nazi Germany and sea.)

All that said, this seems to me just within GA requirements, which are more concerned with tangents and off-topic detail than an article that's consistently at a high level of detail on a major figure. For that reason, consider my suggestions for cuts more recommendation than requirement, so there's no need to respond at all to this section, much less to the individual suggestions for cuts below.

So below I've listed some details that seem to me a level not needed for an encyclopedic summary of McGovern's life. These are only examples, and will only trim a few kb from the article, but every little bit helps, and they may give you a starting point to address this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Split-off subarticles work well for military and sea topics. For example, last month American Civil War got 302,062 views and Battle of Gettysburg got 248,892 views.  Sea got 71,080 views while Marine biology got 23,568 views.  There's a little dropoff in both but not much.  But subarticles are a readership disaster for biographical subjects.  For example, last month John McCain got 144,559 views but Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present got only 407 views.  That's a 355:1 dropoff for someone who is still active and playing a major role in the Senate.  Barack Obama got 468,784 views but United States Senate career of Barack Obama got only 6,676.   Hillary Rodham Clinton got 123,534 views (including redirects) while United States Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton got only 1,625 views.  Sarah Palin got 79,333 views while Early political career of Sarah Palin (even though full of controversial happenings) got only 537 views.  These dropoffs are all generally in the 100:1 range.  It's not exclusive to politicians: Isaac Newton got 250,332 views while Later life of Isaac Newton got 1,525 views.  I've studied these numbers for several years and the 100:1 or worse dropoffs occur across all biographical subjects and eras.


 * The consequence is that when you move something out of a biographical main article into a subarticle, it is tantamount to deleting it, because you know that 99 percent of readers will never see it. And especially with politicians, this provokes all sorts of editor battles with people not wanting controversial material getting taken out of the main and buried in subarticles.  Furthermore, maintaining dual articles is an editorial burden - duplicate additions when something major happens or is written about, duplicate maintenance of deadlink cites, and so on.  You frequently find cases where something is added to the main article but not the subarticle, which is often backwards of how it should be.  So it's a lot of effort for editors and very little benefit for readers.


 * In the case of this article, I did split off some peripheral topics into subarticles: List of awards and honors received by George McGovern, George McGovern in popular culture, and Electoral history of George McGovern. But I am really not up for splitting off anything in the main biography.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, but I'd interpret your statistics differently--as an indicator that less than 1% of Wikipedia readers seem to be interested in a very high level of detail on a subject. Those articles aren't hard to find; it's just that readers aren't interested in clicking through to get the superlong version. I don't think hitting them with the long version by default is a good response to that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Having said my bit, though, I'll stop suggesting possible cuts. This is just within the scope of GA, so it's not an issue we have to settle here. I guess I'll just leave the issue by saying that having heard from two reviewers in a row that the article is overlong and overdetailed, I hope you'll look at this again at some point and consider what parts could be better summarized. If you don't trust Retrolord's and my takes, consider getting a third reader whose opinion you do trust; it's hard sometimes to have that perspective on your own work. There's definitely middle ground between the 80kb version that's here now and the shorter version Retrolord and I are envisioning, and I think the article would be greatly strengthened by some trimming. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any usage studies that would tell us for sure, but I believe that most users reach WP articles via search engines. A Google search for "Battle of Gettysburg" produces that WP article as the first hit. A Google search for "Senator John McCain" produces the WP John McCain main article on the first page of results, but the two subarticles on his senate career don't appear anywhere in the first ten pages of results.


 * But let's look at this another way. If Wikipedia weren't around, people would be reading online biographies at places like biography.com.  That entry is about 700 words long.  And the one on John McCain, a little more recent, is about 1,600 words.  And if Wikipedia weren't around and they wanted to know more, they'd have to go to the library and get a regular book biography.  Those typically run 100,000-150,000 words (the trend in recent years has been towards longer, and as I mentioned earlier, the new biography about McGovern coming out next year is going to run across two volumes).  Well, why not have something in the middle?  The GA and FA articles that get discussed for maybe being too long are typically 10,000-15,000 words (this one is about 12,800).  Well, to me, that seems like a good length.  It's a tenth the size of real books but around ten times longer than the online capsule bio's.


 * Anyway, I'll start responding to the particular items below this evening. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Details of the father's basketball career
 * Calgary Stampede
 * Corn Palace
 * "where he was a solid but unspectacular member of the track team"
 * "McGovern recalled: "Frankly, I was scared to death on that first solo flight. But when I walked away from it, I had an enormous feeling of satisfaction that I had taken the thing off the ground and landed it without tearing the wings off.""
 * "McGovern was listening to a radio broadcast of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra for a sophomore-year music appreciation class when he heard the news of the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor."
 * "He subsequently drove to Omaha, Nebraska, with some other students" (the city where he volunteered or who he went with isn't particularly relevant)
 * The list of different bases he was posted seems overdetailed; I'm not sure we need the month by month summary of his postings
 * "Eleanor McGovern followed him to these different duty stations, and was present when he received his wings and was commissioned a Second Lieutenant.[30]"
 * "Eleanor was constantly afraid of her husband's suffering an accident while training, which claimed a huge toll of airmen during the entire war"
 * " where McGovern found history books with which to fill downtime, especially during the trip overseas on a slow troopship"
 * "The eight- or nine-hour missions were grueling tests of endurance for pilots and crew, and while German fighter aircraft were a diminished threat by this time as compared to earlier in the war, his missions often faced heavy anti-aircraft artillery fire that filled the sky with flak bursts" -- the threat of anti-aircraft fire will be known to almost all readers, and is made clear by the next paragraph anyway
 * "In January 1945, McGovern used R&R time to see every sight that he could in Rome, and to participate in an audience with the Pope"
 * "McGovern later said "Hell can't be any worse than that""
 * "McGovern's waist gunner was injured, and his flight engineer was so unnerved by his experience that he would subsequently be hospitalized with battle fatigue,"
 * ", with the rank of First Lieutenant" -- rank was already given
 * "one instance of which was for the safe landing on his final mission"
 * "with students dedicating the college yearbook to him in 1952"
 * " When polls showed McGovern gaining, Lovre's campaign implied that McGovern's support for admitting People's Republic of China to the United Nations and his past support for Henry Wallace meant that McGovern was a Communist appeaser or sympathizer.[80] In his closing speech, McGovern responded: "I have always despised communism and every other ruthless tyranny over the mind and spirit of man."[80]"
 * "and World War II Medal of Honor recipient "
 * "(during this hospitalization, McGovern read Theodore H. White's classic The Making of the President, 1960 and for the first time began thinking about running for the office someday)"
 * " Eleanor McGovern campaigned for her ailing husband and may have preserved his chance of winning."
 * "McGovern had a fractious relationship with Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman, who was less sympathetic to farmers; McGovern's 1966 resolution to informally scold Freeman made the senator popular back in his home state.[101] Fellow new senator Edward M. Kennedy saw McGovern as a serious voice on farm policy and often sought McGovern's guidance on agriculture-related votes"
 * ", although he would try to influence the contents of others' bills"
 * "Seeking to dramatize the problem, in March 1969 McGovern took the committee to Immokalee, Florida, the base for 20,000 mostly black or Hispanic migrant farm workers.[137] They saw graphic examples of hunger and malnutrition firsthand, but also encountered resistance and complaints about bad publicity from local and state officials"
 * "The U.S. presidential nominating process has been different ever since, with scholars and politicians debating whether all the changes are for the better.[134][135]" -- the first half is already clear, and the second a bit vague
 * "McGovern declared: "This administration, which pledged to slow inflation and reduce unemployment, has instead given us the highest rate of inflation and the highest rate of unemployment in a decade.""
 * "A 1971 60 Minutes report about liberal politicians and journalists who advocated integrated schooling while avoiding it for their children, included McGovern"
 * "But most of all, McGovern was known for his continued opposition to the Vietnam War." -- already clear
 * ", just short of what McGovern had hoped would constitute at least a moral victory"
 * "McGovern believed Vietnam an immoral war that was destroying much of what was pure, hopeful, and different about America's character as a nation" -- obvious enough already
 * "He accused Vice President of South Vietnam Nguyen Cao Ky of running a heroin trafficking operation that was addicting American soldiers."
 * "In a retort to the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee chair John Stennis' suggestion that U.S. troops might have to return to Cambodia, McGovern declared, "I'm tired of old men dreaming up wars for young men to fight. If he wants to use American ground troops in Cambodia, let him lead the charge himself."" -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Checklist
Overall, this article is solid, excellent work, and close to passing. Specific action points are listed above. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your work on this major figure! I'm excited to have worked on this one, and to see it as a GA soon. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)