Talk:Soil Association

Ready for template removal?
Can the template be removed now? It looks like the issues with advertising (2018) and embedded lists (2012) have been sorted.

Proposed creating of Soil Association Certification article to sit separately from Soil Association (charity).
Hi there - I would like to propose a rewrite of the introduction section which introduces the Soil Association. At the moment, the intro does not differentiate between Soil Association (the charity) and Soil Association Certification (the wholly-owned, not-for-profit subsidiary of the Soil Association charity) which is responsible for the certification of organic products. The charity and certification business have quite different aims and objectives. How would fellow wikipedians feel about two different articles, one for the charity, one for the certification business? Roxy the sceptical dog . wooF - seeking your advice on this before proposing redraft of the introduction section on this article. Worth saying at this point that there are many sections on this article that I would like to update, but as per your advice, I will take it one section at a time for ease and to make sure we get it right. Thanks in advance DanMor0806 (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion regarding creating a second SA article. Perhaps as we get on with dealing with this article that will become clear, because I know nothing about SA beyond what I have read here. Because of our policy on how an article is written, the 'Introduction' or Lead as we call it, is supposed to be a summary of the most notable/important points from the rest of the article, the 'body' text. That stated, I suggest we leave the Lead until we are happy with the rest of the article and can properly summarise. Think about what you want the lead to say, and how the body text supports it. Somewhere in the body text is where we should begin, I think. -Roxy the sceptical dog . wooF 14:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried, and was all geared up to help, considering how to explain without creating negativity, but then ... + sound of crickets + -Roxy the sceptical dog . wooF 21:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Roxy the sceptical dog . wooF. I'm sorry - that's my fault - no disrespect intended. A few people left my team and resource became an issue. I will get working on a revised draft as soon as possible and send something over here. If you are still willing to help I would really appreciate it. Thanks again DanMor0806 (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * No Problem. Really - See WP:THEREISNORUSH which is almost on point, but you'll see how it applies. PS - If you read that link, dont go past the turtle, the point is made already!!! -Roxy the sceptical dog . wooF 15:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Roxy the sceptical dog . wooF. Here we go - as promised, the first section of this page as a redraft. I have built in more information about the history of the Soil Association to give more information about its founders rather than just two. I have also included history about the origins of the Haughley Experiment, how it influenced Lady Eve's book and the founding of the organisation. I think this is important. I then included details about when the Soil Association Certification trade arm was established. This is an important part of the organisations history as the birth of organic standards in the UK. I could have gone on with details about different programmes launching over the years but felt, for now, this was a good start. I have made sure the content is referenced correctly - when uploading the draft, I will include backlinks to appropriate wiki pages. For now, I'd welcome your feedback on the draft. Thanks, DanMor0806 (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

History The Soil Association was founded on 12 June 1945 at a founders meeting in which about a hundred people attended.[2][3] The Soil Association was formally registered on 3 May 1946,[4] and in the next decade grew from a few hundred to over four thousand members.[5] As of October 2021, the Soil Association has 10,000 members.

According to its website: "The Soil Association was founded in 1946 by a group of farmers, scientists and nutritionists who observed a direct connection between farming practice and plant, animal, human and environmental health..."The catalyst was the publication of "The Living Soil" by Lady Eve Balfour, the niece of former Prime Minister Arthur Balfour, in 1943. The book was inspired by her experience of the Haughley experiment [6,7] and presented the case for an alternative, sustainable approach to agriculture that has since become known as organic farming."

The Haughley experiment was based on an idea that farmers were over-reliant on fertilizers, that livestock, crops and the soil should be treated as a whole system[8], and that "natural" farming produced food which was in some way more wholesome than food produced with more intensive methods.[9] Lady Balfour believed that mankind's future and human health were dependent on how the soil was treated, and ran the experiment to generate scientific data that would support these beliefs.[9] The Soil Association was founded on these beliefs.

The founders of the Soil Association included Lady Eve, Friend Sykes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friend_Sykes), Jorian Jenks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorian_Jenks), George Scott Williamson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Scott_Williamson), Innes Hope Pearse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innes_Hope_Pearse) and Mary Langman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Langman) amongst others.

Friend Sykes (1888–1965) was an English organic farmer and writer. Along with Sir Albert Howard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Howard), an English botanist, Sykes has been described as a founder of the organic movement.[10] The use of compost and manure to improve soil was important to Sykes' approach to farming. Sykes and Frank Newman Turner's organic farming emphasized ploughless soil cultivation, green manure, organic soil cover and ley farming[2].

Jorian Jenks was an English farmer, environmentalism pioneer and member of the British Union of Fascists (BUF) closely associated with Oswald Mosley. Jenks was the editorial secretary of the Association's journal "Mother Earth". During the late 1940s the Association involved far-right and even antisemitic elements, remnants of the defunct BUF, and was driven by far-right political ideas as much as ecological concerns. Following Jenks' death in 1963, the Association tilted towards the left of the political spectrum, especially under the new president of the Association, Barry Commoner.[11] The campaigner Alastair Sawday was Vice Chairman of the association between 2005 and 2007.[12]

George Scott Williamson and Innes Hope Pearse were both doctors who designed the Peckham Experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peckham_Experiment) which was designed to determine whether people as a whole would, given the opportunity, take a vested interest in their own health and fitness and expend effort to maintain it. The experiment took place between 1926 and 1950, initially generated by rising public concern over the health of the working class and an increasing interest in preventive social medicine.

Mary Langman who secetary to Wwas also involved in the delivery of the Peckham Experiment, was an organic farmer and a pivotal contributor to the development of the wholefood and organic movement in Britain. As a french speaker, Langman played an important role in setting up IFOAM, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements.[13]

The Soil Association was one of five like-minded associations that founded the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) in 1972 in Versailles, France, to act as the umbrella organisation to advocate for the global uptake of organic farming.[14]

In 1973 Soil Association Certification was launched. To date, 70% of organic food in the UK is certified by Soil Association Certification, and the organisation is one of only six UK approved control bodies.[15]

Following the introduction of organic standards, Soil Association Certification launched in 1973. Soil Association Certification Ltd (SACL) is a not-for-profit subsidiary of the Soil Association charity, independently providing organic certification services and advisory support on all aspects of organic certification. SACL is one of the organic certification bodies in the UK,[15] approved by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Organic certification sets strict benchmarks for organic food production, packaging, animal welfare, wildlife conservation, residues and additives to reassure the buying public over the quality of products labelled organic. The standards cover agriculture,[16] aquaculture,[17], EU equivalent standards[18], food and drink processing,[19] forestry,[20] health and beauty products,[21] and textiles[22]. 70% of organic food in the UK is certified by Soil Association Certification. Products certified by the Soil Association carry an organic logo.

2 - Conford, Philip. (2001). The Origins of the Organic Movement. Floris Books. p. 252. ISBN 978-0863153365 3 - Lockeretz, William. (2018). Organic Farming: An International History. CABI. p. 189. ISBN 978-0-85199-833-6 4 - Paull, John (2009). "The Living Soil Association: Pioneering Organic Farming and Innovating Social Inclusion" (PDF). Journal of Organic Systems. 4 (1): 15–33. 5 - Conford, Philip & Holden, Patrick (2007), "The Soil Association", in William Lockeretz (ed.), Organic Farming: An International History, Oxfordshire, UK & Cambridge, Massachusetts: CAB International (CABI), pp. 187–200, ISBN 978-0-85199-833-6, retrieved 10 August 2010 ebook ISBN 978-1-84593-289-3 6 - White, Kim Kennedy; Duram, Leslie A (2013). America Goes Green: An Encyclopedia of Eco-friendly Culture in the United States. California: ABC-CLIO. p. 176. ISBN 978-1-59884-657-7. 7 - "LADY EVE BALFOUR". IFOAM. Retrieved 21 August 2014. 8 - "The Haughley Experiment". Nature. 179 (4558): 514. 1957. Bibcode:1957Natur.179T.514.. doi:10.1038/179514d0. 9 - Gordon, Ian (2004). Reproductive Technologies in Farm Animals. CABI. pp. 10–. ISBN 978-0-85199-049-1. 10 - Scialabba, Nadia; Hattam, Caroline. (2002). Organic Agriculture, Environment and Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. p. 141. ISBN 92-5-104819-3 11 - Macklin, Graham (2007). Very deeply dyed in black: Sir Oswald Mosley and the resurrection of British fascism after 1945. I.B.Tauris. ISBN 978-1-84511-284-4. 12 - "Alastair Sawday: the green travel pioneer". The Simple Things. Retrieved 7 January 2019. 13 - Mary Langman - https://www.theguardian.com/news/2004/apr/26/guardianobituaries.food 14 - Paull, John (2010). "From France to the World: The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)" (PDF). Journal of Social Research & Policy. 1 (2): 93–102. 15 - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/organic-certification-list-of-uk-approved-organic-control-bodies 16 - "Farming and Growing Standards". Soil Association. Retrieved 11 November 2021 - https://www.soilassociation.org/our-standards/read-our-organic-standards/farming-growing-standards/ 17 - "Aquaculture and Seaweed Standards". Soil Association. Retrieved 11 November 2021. - https://www.soilassociation.org/our-standards/read-our-organic-standards/aquaculture-seaweed-standards/ 18 - "EU Equivalent Organic Standards". Soil Association. Retrieved 11 November 2021. - https://www.soilassociation.org/our-standards/read-our-organic-standards/eu-equivalent-organic-standards/ 19 - "Food and drink standards". Soil Association. Retrieved 11 November 2021. - https://www.soilassociation.org/our-standards/read-our-organic-standards/food-drink-standards/ 20 - "Forestry standards". Soil Association. Retrieved 11 November 2021. - https://www.soilassociation.org/our-standards/read-our-organic-standards/forestry-standards/ 21 - "Health and Beautry standards". Soil Association. Retrieved 11 November 2021. - https://www.soilassociation.org/our-standards/read-our-organic-standards/health-beauty-standards/ 22 - "Textiles standards". Soil Association. Retrieved 11 November 2021. - https://www.soilassociation.org/our-standards/read-our-organic-standards/textiles-standards/

DanMor0806 (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Dan, I'm coming here after User:Roxy the dog posted asking for some help reviewing your suggestions. Firstly, I'm afraid that as it stands, it is very difficult to determine what it is that you are requesting be changed. Can you please either change it so that you explicitly say "remove this" or "add this" rather than rewriting the entire section but without formatting the citations. If you need help with formatting citations, please take a look at HELP:CITE and ask if anything is unclear. Alternatively, copy the existing history section to User:DanMor0806/sandbox and then make the proposed changes to that page and ask for them to be reviewed. I will carry on watching this page, but can't guarantee being able to respond, however you can ask for your edits to be reviewed by adding request edit which will add this page to a list waiting to be reviewed. SmartSE (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Roxy the dog for seeking onward advice. : Hi SmartSE - Thanks for the advice. I have uploaded the draft to my sandbox User:DanMor0806/sandbox as suggested, outlining proposed amends for review. I hope it is clear enough now? request edit DanMor0806 (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just popping Servants of the Soil: The Lonely Furrow of the Soil Association 1946–2000 here as an example of a source that should be used. SmartSE (talk) 09:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you SmartSE (talk). That's good source material. I can use it to Cite some of the proposed edits I have made. Have I done everything else required to have the draft reviewed? Do I just sit and wait patiently now for someone to review? DanMor0806 (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your highly constructive approach to this! I don't see anything at User:DanMor0806/Sandbox. Did you create a subpage in your sandbox?  If it's easier, you can just paste the full URL here (rather than a wikilink]. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , never mind, found it, it's actually User:DanMor0806/sandbox (small s). BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you BubbaJoe123456 (talk) for seeking out the draft. Would appreciate a review of the proposed changes and happy to get feedback and work on edits. Thanks in advance. DanMor0806 (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi folks - It has been just over a month since sharing my draft changes for the Soil Association 'History section' and requesting a review. Hoping it is now acceptable to upload my changes to the page. If this is reverted, please can I request a dialogue with someone to discuss any further necessary amendments? My aim is to continue working through sections of this page (as per the conversation above) so would like to now draft up changes for the next section. I want to follow the rules as instructed and am respectful of processes - this just appears to have stalled a little. DanMor0806 (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't think anyone's in any doubt that the article is not in good shape and needs work. But may I suggest that you take a slightly different approach to achieving that? What I suggest is that you make a very small number of very brief edit requests using Request edit, identifying major or serious errors or omissions of verifiable fact? A good request might read something like ""; it will in any case be under 100 words. A request of this kind asks little of the editor reviewing it, and is quite likely to receive a response (no guarantees on what that response will be!). Very complex requests (and that definitely includes reviewing long drafts) call for a huge investment of time by editors who might prefer to be doing other things, so their chances of receiving any response are pretty low. I'm happy to make some simple corrections to the page if the refs support them; I've no interest in massaging the text to make it read more like a website. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Justlettersandnumbers (talk). Thanks for the response. The approach I had taken was recommended by two fellow wikipedians whose advice I followed. Thanks for your suggestion of an alternative method. With the greatest respect for your assistance, my concern is that the page doesn't only require small edits, but a thorough edit, which includes minor updates to outdated information and additions to sparse sections. If a longer edit cannot be achieved due to a lack of resources from wikipedians, then the Soil Association would rather have the page removed entirely. I hope it can be understood that an inaccurate page about the organisation is less useful (and more reputationally damaging) than one which doesn't exist at all. Is there any particular issue with the proposed edits I made to the history section of this page? I was advised to propose edits to the page section by section and have begun with the history part. I am willing to invest a lot of my time to get this page updated once and for all, but am concerned it might become an impossible task without appropriate and voluntary help from wikipedians. DanMor0806 (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well,, whether or not we have a page on the association is determined by our internal policies, not by anything the association says or wants; similarly, the content of the page is decided by volunteer editors with little or no reference to what the association wants or says. That said, why don't you (briefly!) list here the worst three errors/inaccuracies, with the independent reliable sources that give the correct information? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Justlettersandnumbers (talk) for the explanation. I do understand that it isn't for organisations to decided what is and what isn't on Wikipedia - transparency and independence from bias are important so that Wikipedia remains a trustworthy source of information. My point was that currently, this page serves no one well (Soil Association or people seeking more information about the organisation) apart from those who may seek to discredit the organisation. It won't do that until it is properly up to date and has significant material added - which I am willing to put time into sorting out :). An example of information needing updating is the list of certification standards that the Soil Association currently certifies to. In my User:DanMor0806/sandbox draft I list the current standards with references. The additional edits I am proposing add important information to how and why the organisation was founded, as well as by whom. As you can see, a particular edit in the pages history is a simple addition of Jorian Jenks as a founder with information about his political persuasions. Whilst not factually incorrect, without information about the other founders (which have equal, if not more significance), this doesn't present a useful overview of the organisations founding. My edits for the page are less to do with correcting information that is not correct, but more to do with supplying additional information which is useful to the viewer. Everything that I have supplied in my draft has independent and reliable citation. Thanks for your time for working with me on this. DanMor0806 (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedians. I am hoping to have a review of a redraft for the history section for this page following a suggestion to do so from SmartSE (talk. The draft changes are in my sandbox User:DanMor0806/sandbox with full citations and independent sources. It has been over a month since sharing my draft changes for the Soil Association 'History section' and requesting a review Request edit. Hoping it is now acceptable to upload my changes to the page. Again, as advised by a fellow wikipedian, my aim is to continue working through sections of this page (as per the conversation above) so would like to now draft up changes for the next section. I want to follow the rules as instructed and am respectful of processes - but I have been advised three times now that people don't have the capacity to help, so it feels like I am hitting a dead end each time. I think I am going about this in the right way? DanMor0806 (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Attempting to update the whole page via a series of smaller, easy to follow edits.
Hi all - as one can see from the most recent discussion in this talk page, it has been difficult to update the information on the Soil Association page. My COI is problematic, as is the required time from wikipedians to help with the editing process. Taking recommendations from Wikipedia's TeaHouse I am going to attempt to make small edits at a time, and request a review each time (rather than asking someone to review a whole section redraft which has proven prohibitive. Thanks in advance to anyone who helps with this process. First edit as follows;

Remove: "The book presented the case for an alternative, sustainable approach to agriculture that has since become known as organic farming." Replace with: "The book was inspired by her experience of the Haughley experiment and presented the case for an alternative, sustainable approach to agriculture that has since become known as organic farming."

Add: "The Haughley experiment was based on an idea that farmers were over-reliant on fertilizers, that livestock, crops and the soil should be treated as a whole system and that "natural" farming produced food which was in some way more wholesome than food produced with more intensive methods". Lady Balfour believed that mankind's future and human health were dependent on how the soil was treated, and ran the experiment to generate scientific data that would support these beliefs. . The Soil Association was founded on these beliefs.


 * ❌ The content you wish to replace is no longer there, so your requested edits make no sense. Theroadislong (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you Theroadislong (talk). Someone removed the section I had proposed edits on after I had proposed the edits which is why they no longer make sense. I will try again with another suggested edit as follows;

Replace: "It was founded in part due to concerns over intensive agriculture and in particular the use of herbicides." With: The first president of the Soil Association was Lady Eve. The organisation was formed following the publication of her book 'The Living Soil'. Reprinted numerous times, it became a founding text of the emerging organic food and farming movement and of the Soil Association. . The book is based on the initial findings of the first three years of the Haughley Experiment, the first formal, side-by-side farm trial to compare organic and chemical-based farming. .

Add: The Haughley experiment was based on an idea that farmers were over-reliant on fertilizers, that livestock, crops and the soil should be treated as a whole system and that "natural" farming produced food which was in some way more wholesome than food produced with more intensive methods" . Lady Balfour believed that mankind's future and human health were dependent on how the soil was treated, and ran the experiment to generate scientific data that would support these beliefs..

Request edit DanMor0806 (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers (talk). I was hoping you could explain what was wrong with the edits I have made to the page - you reverted my edits without explanation. After a month of waiting for edits to be considered, I decided to publish. It has been identified by many in the talk history that this page is not fit for purpose. As the only person who is seemingly willing to add detail to improve the page, I am very unclear how I am expected to do so without a review of proposed edits. I was told to make small and minor changes as I go rather than propose whole page edits. I am happy to take this approach but without adequate and timely feedback to proposed edits the page will take years to update. Some advice on how to move forwards would be appreciated. I am trying very hard to stick to the guidelines suggested by Wikipedians (which have also differed from one another). Can you please provide an explanation so I can try again or at least just any option for moving forwards with this piece of work? Thanks DanMor0806 (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Justlettersandnumbers (talk). Once again you have reverted my changes. Without engaging in conversation in this talk session with me, I am at a complete loss as to how to move forwards with editing and improving this page. I was trying to follow the process you instructed me to follow. Is there a process for having the whole page reviewed by a wikipedian that I can explore? I understand it is not possible to hire someone to do this. How can I find someone, without COI, to review this properly? Is there a forum/group of individuals to who this page can be flagged to? Thanks in advance. DanMor0806 (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , I've already given you my advice on how to correct fundamental errors or omissions of verifiable fact in the page (my posts of 13 and 14 December, the first starting "DanMor0806 ...", the second "Well, DanMor0806 ..."), but it seems that is not what you want to do. Nevertheless, if you do choose follow that advice I will try to find time to review your requests (please note that we have hundreds of requests waiting for review, and only those that are simple, clear and necessary are likely to receive attention). Also, if you add urls to the references you've cited above, I might look at a few of them to see if anything useful can be gleaned therefrom (no promises – ping me here if you do that).
 * It was not I who reverted your reversion of my last edit to the page, but (thanks, Roxy!). Whatever else you do, please avoid any further WP:edit-warring. At the risk of repeating myself, I remind you that WP:COI/WP:PAID editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article; in practice, that discouragement very often takes the form of reversion of such edits. The discussion forum is this page; the article has already been discussed at WP:COIN, so several editors are likely to be aware of it. You could start a WP:Request for comment, but I wouldn't if I were you. One last bit of advice: please be aware of this. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response Justlettersandnumbers (talk). I believed I was following your advice - this new talk section is an attempt at doing that - small edits, one at a time and appropriately referenced. I waited for over a month for someone to review this small edit but nothing happened. That isn't a dig at you or other wikipedians who I know volunteer their time - but I am saying it more to highlight that unless there is a quicker turnaround time on edits being reviewed, I fail to see how I am going to actually be able to update this page so that it is useful in the next year (one small edit per month!). I hope that makes sense? My belief is that, because of my COI, it is going to be impossible for me to update the page in a timely and efficient manner. Ultimately, as I know wikipedians do, I want this page to be a neutral, fact-based account of the Soil Association - perhaps this task is better done by another for that reason (who is allowed to publish edits in a timely manner) so I will try to find someone who can (through the appropriate channels- non-paid). Apologies for incorrectly suggesting you reverted my edits a second time. I misread! DanMor0806 (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * DanMor0806 You might like to read WP:TIND and then if you want to improve Wikipedia edit some other articles.SovalValtos (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing that SovalValtos (talk). I am aware there is no deadline and shouldn't be. My comments about time were more to do with how long it will take me to add content to the page with my COI (one edit at a time) compared to someone without a COI who doesn't need to rely on others to review edits in the same way. And, with respect, a page which damages an organisations reputation due to being incomplete, factually incorrect and which pays too much attention to the political leanings of one of its 100 founders, is something that we would prefer was resolved sooner rather than later (all in a way which adheres with the ultimate goal of having a page which is neutral, without bias, factually correct and up to date!) DanMor0806 (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Request edit
Remove and Replace: It was founded in part due to concerns over intensive agriculture and in particular the use of herbicides. With/Add: The first president of the Soil Association was Lady Eve. . The organisation was formed following the publication of her book 'The Living Soil'. Reprinted numerous times, it became a founding text of the emerging organic food and farming movement and of the Soil Association. . The book is based on the initial findings of the first three years of the Haughley Experiment, the first formal, side-by-side farm trial to compare organic and chemical-based farming.

Add: The Haughley experiment was based on an idea that farmers were over-reliant on fertilizers, that livestock, crops and the soil should be treated as a whole system and that "natural" farming produced food which was in some way more wholesome than food produced with more intensive methods". Lady Balfour believed that mankind's future and human health were dependent on how the soil was treated, and ran the experiment to generate scientific data that would support these beliefs. DanMor0806 (talk)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Your citation numbers appear to be a little mixed up, and also you haven't signed the request so I have no idea who you are and who to credit in the edit summary if/when this is added.  casualdejekyll  01:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi casualdejekyll . Apologies - I have now signed it as myself and rectified the citations. Apologies for wasting your time here - all should now be in order. I appreciate you reviewing the changes.  DanMor0806 (talk) 14:25, 04 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Reopened.  casualdejekyll  14:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @DanMor0806 Closing out this edit request as it appears that most of the requested changes have been implemented. I removed the List warning from the template.  Article is still a little too promotional (imo).  Cheers.  Duke Gilmore (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)