Talk:True Detective season 1

Music
Composer T Bone Burnett should probably be mentioned in this article. I found two great resources for possible inclusion:. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources for individual episodes
- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Episode 2: Talk:Seeing Things (True Detective)
 * Episode 3: Talk:The Locked Room (True Detective)
 * Episode 4: Talk:Who Goes There (True Detective)
 * Episode 5: Talk:The Secret Fate of All Life
 * Episode 6: Talk:Haunted Houses (True Detective)
 * Episode 7: Talk:After You've Gone (True Detective)
 * Episode 8: Talk:Form and Void (True Detective)

Articles for other episodes, then Good topic?
I am curious, do other editors have a sense of whether there should be articles for each episode? If so, would be great to work towards a Good topic. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on True Detective (season 1). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151106001143/http://comicsalliance.com/true-detective-comic-books-weird-fiction-secrets-influences-alan-moore-grant-morrison-invisibles-hbo/ to http://comicsalliance.com/true-detective-comic-books-weird-fiction-secrets-influences-alan-moore-grant-morrison-invisibles-hbo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Reviews
I've been through ten or twenty of the reviews, and have put together a draft rewrite. This is just a draft, so I haven't tried to make the quotes word-for-word accurate, and I haven't put in any cites -- I have the notes for the cites, but I want to see if this is in the right direction before doing that work.

The performances of the two lead actors were praised by almost all reviewers. McConaughey, in particular, impressed critics, with his work described as "jaw-droppingly great" and "simply magnetic". Some reviewers singled out simple conversational scenes, in claustrophobic interiors, as McConaughey's best work. Harrelson's performance was also regarded as very strong, though most critics felt he was outshone by McConaughey. The two separate timelines allowed Harrelson and McConaughey to foreshadow, in the 1990s scenes, the flaws their characters would experience. The characterization received more mixed commentary. Cohle's speeches, described by HuffPo as "mesmerizing monologues", and by Vanity Fair as dense and interesting material, were criticized by others as "'70s-era pscyho-babble" which slowed down the story. Several reviewers commented on the stereotypical portrayals of women as "either angry or aroused", though Michele Monaghan was praised for her performance in a "thankless role".

Pizzolatto and Fukunaga, as sole writer and director of the entire series, were able to exercise much stronger control over the show than is usual for a TV series, and The Independent felt this was a strength of the series which allowed the show to take risks. Pizzolatto's writing drew occasional criticism as overblown and stagy, and some felt there was too much experimentation: several reviewers commented that Pizzolatto was relatively new to TV drama writing, and that the script's mistakes could be attributed to his inexperience. Despite the criticism, the story was described as ambitious and deep. The flashback structure also divided reviewers: the NY Times reviewer found it "impressively seamless", but the fragmented approach to storytelling was considered a flaw by others. Fukunaga was praised for his atmospheric and "hauntingly beautiful" cinematography, and the "spare, hollow, percussive" soundtrack was also praised, with Uproxx crediting the creative control the two men wielded for the quality of the result.

The story of two mismatched detectives working on a case was described by several critics as a cliche, though many reviewers felt this was made into a strength: the Daily Beast, for example, described the narrative as having "the potential to be revolutionary", and the Grantland reviewer felt that "the form is truly radical and forward-thinking", though they added that "the content is anything but". Emily Nussbaum, writing for the New Yorker, was also critical, considering the real story to be "a simpler tale: one about heroic male outlines and closeups of female asses"; she described the philosophical monologues as "dorm room deep talk" and argued that the show had "fallen for its own sales pitch". Most reviewers were more positive: comments ranged from "as frighteningly nervy and furious in its delivery and intent as prime David Lynch", to "one of the most riveting and provocative series I've ever seen".

Some comments about this version: Any comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it might be a little too focused on negative comments, but not by much. There was a *lot* of praise in the reviews for McConaughey's acting, and to a lesser extent for Harrelson and Monaghan.  Beyond that there was much less agreement.  However, I think a couple more positive comments could be added in places.
 * I've avoided attributing inline where possible, since I think the citations enable a reader to find the source if they're interested, and if they're not the names are just a distraction.
 * I skipped the Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes data -- I think of this as metadata; the reader is better off with a summary of the reviews in verbal form than they are with these numerical scores -- in other words, I think it's better to describe the reception than to score it.
 * apologies first and foremost for not responding as promptly as I should have. It's been a very busy few days for me and I haven't had much time for editing. Admittedly I was confused as to how to approach this, considering I initially drafted the reception section in its current structure, but your draft is sharper and more robust than what's there now. I think the POV is fair and encyclopedic, although if this is of concern then I can add a couple of more reviews to balance it out. Otherwise, it's great. Thank you so much for taking the time out of your day to do this! DAP  💅 22:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you like it -- no worries about the slow response, of course; there's no deadline. I'll add citations to this version and put it in the article in the next couple of days, but please have a think about whethere there are more positive comments that could usefully be added.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I've now added citations in this sandbox, but the format for the web cites is autogenerated, and in most cases the article has existing citations for these sources, with archive URLs included. , how do you want to handle this? If you'd like to take over at this point and transfer the text to the article, modifying the citations to suit the format you've been using, that's fine with me. If you'd prefer I did it, let me know and I'll take a shot at it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I think I can take over at this point. I'll transfer to draft to the main article and just transfer citations via the article's editing history. Again, I can't thank you enough for this. I appreciate this very much and keep up the great work! DAP  💅 13:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK -- I'll keep an eye on it and help if I can. You're welcome; I've been complaining about reception sections for a while, and it's nice to get a chance to try to improve one, rather than just complain. Let me know when you are ready to go back to FAC and I'll take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Some comments on the current form, more later, hopefully. Is there a grammatical necessity for "to be" or would "among" by itself be sufficient? About half of the quotes in this section can be squashed or paraphrased. The above sentence is typically a good opportunity for quotes, using specificity to bolster an otherwise one-dimensional claim or detail of critical impression that might be lost in paraphrase. However, I think the quotes are redundant in this case, as "impressed critics" communicated the same without the extra text. (They also remind of reviewer pull-quotes shown in film advertisements.) I'd just give the first part of the sentence a mega-citation and skip right to the scenes or actual examples that reviewers used to show their impression. I say "mega" because some of these claims are large and borderline original research, depending on how they're phrased. It's fine to say that "critics claimed x" because no one infers that it means "all critics claimed" (definitely don't write the latter without a source that says so, explicitly). Instead, you can group the five+ reviewers who made the claim (that McConaughey's performance was exceptional) into a single citation à la Sabre_Wulf. I'll try to add more later, but ping me if I get distracted. czar 13:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's very helpful; any more comments would be appreciated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I edited as I read until I found myself giving it more of a FA review, so I toned that down too. Here are some questions/suggestions (in addition to the two unresolved quotes above): Regarded by whom? Refs need to answer this question if the prose will not (directly). And "most" with only two refs would be insufficient unless one of those refs said "most critics".

Flashback? (Don't know, didn't read plot, though that shouldn't necessarily be a requirement for understanding another section.) In any event, is this sentence needed? If it was praised as a thematic device, say so, that's the most important part I'm in the camp that this is an extraordinary claim (and likely original research). Others might be more lenient and others might be harsher. Best to avoid, anyway. How can we make a definitive statement about the characterization across all reviewers? Unless a source says so, I don't see it. I'd save the blanket statements for when they can be supported with a ref dump. And the next sentence already does that work for you. (Why are two papers mentioned by name and the third is anonymized as "criticized by others"?) If anything, the dissenting source is the one to mention by name watch passive voice and "by whom" this is the juice of the sentence—what risks? "by whom?" Without qualification, this sentence is made to read like gospel. It either needs a ton of refs to back it up or else to be watered down good quotes extraordinary statements require extraordinary proof (two is not the same as "most") Sidenote: Publisher fields aren't needed for almost all of these sources. It's more for the full book citation to accompany the location parameter. If the work is linked to a newspaper already, the publisher info is redundant. Do add the ISSNs, though. czar 02:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the comments; I have to get some TFAs done, but I'll respond here in the next day or two. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Responses
, first of all, thanks for the detailed comments. I've been talking about improving reception sections for a while now, but I haven't had to submit anything I've written to review by others because the articles I write don't have reception sections; so this has been educational for me.

Second, I looked at a lot of reviews and took detailed notes; I'm going to list them below so I can refer to them. I think it may be justifiable to say "many" or "most" if we really have a preponderance of opinion and a lot of strong sources.


 * US papers
 * Chicago Tribune/Redeye
 * NY Post
 * NY Times
 * USA Today
 * San Francisco Chronicle
 * LA Times
 * Boston Globe
 * WaPo


 * UK papers
 * The Independent
 * Guardian
 * Daily Telegraph


 * Magazines
 * Vanity Fair
 * New Yorker
 * Time
 * New York magazine
 * Entertainment Weekly
 * Variety


 * Websites
 * HuffPo
 * Daily Beast
 * Uproxx
 * A.V. Club
 * Grantland
 * Artsfuse
 * Slant

Here are the comments from above, with responses; it might take me a day or two to get through them all if I'm going to reply in detail.

Is there a grammatical necessity for "to be" or would "among" by itself be sufficient?
 * Changed to "one of the best". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarded by whom? Refs need to answer this question if the prose will not (directly). And "most" with only two refs would be insufficient unless one of those refs said "most critics".
 * This was interesting to look at. I was certain I'd find a strong majority for this in the sources, but in fact, support for this is:
 * Chicago Tribune: "Harrelson is reliably terrific as a somewhat frustrated good ole boy, but McConaughey is simply magnetic."
 * NY Times: "And if there’s a compelling reason to watch “True Detective,” [McConaughey and Harrelson] provide it, particularly Mr. McConaughey..."
 * Guardian: "Much has been made of McConaughey's performance as Cohle" -- this implies McConaughey has been praised more than Harrelson elsewhere
 * Vanity Fair: "McConaughey in particular maintaining a transfixing, ghostly focus"
 * Time: " Whatever you’ve heard about Matthew McConaughey’s astounding performance as Rust Cohle is true, and maybe even sells it short...his acting may unfairly overshadow costar Woody Harrelson"
 * New York: "For all its moments of levity, True Detective’s temperament is defined less by Hart than by Cohle...McConaughey, who has never credibly played an intellectual, much less a tortured one, is furiously convincing here". Doesn't explicitly compare McConaughey to Harrelson, just singles out McConaughey.
 * HuffPo: "Woody Harrelson...is McConaughey’s co-lead in the murder mystery, and I don’t mean to damn him with faint praise by heaping superlatives on McConaughey. Harrelson is an effective presence in his own right, but his role as a Louisiana detective is both less showy and occasionally prone to cliche."
 * Daily Beast: "It's going to be particularly painful to bid Cohle adieu at the end of True Detective's debut season. In part that's because of McConaughey's remarkable performance: a coiled, intelligent, perfect thing that should once and for all erase his hard-earned image as a shirtless stoner drawling his way through a perpetual string of interchangeable romantic comedies. It is some of the finest screen acting I've seen in a long time."
 * Uproxx: "It's not hyperbole to suggest that McConaughey will win every award for which he is eligible, both because he is a Movie Star stooping to work in television, and because he is jaw-droppingly great. McConaughey has reinvented himself in the last few years, using his leading man swagger in service to each performance, rather than a substitute for one. Even if nothing else about “True Detective” worked – and so much of it works spectacularly – McConaughey would be worth the price of admission. (Harrelson”s terrific in his own right, and could also win many trophies if he”s willing to position himself as a supporting actor, even though they”re both clear leads.)"
 * AV Club: "Harrelson and McConaughey, who are proof positive that 90 percent of a good TV show is casting. McConaughey, in particular, is riveting as raw nerve Rust Cohle"
 * Grantland: "And it’s thrilling to see movie stars like McConaughey and Harrelson crackling in nearly every scene. They’re not slumming in TV, they’re soaring. Both are at the top of their game, though McConaughey in particular seems to be playing a different sport altogether"


 * Not commenting that McConaughey was better:
 * NY Post: "Both McConaughey and Harrelson turn in first-rate performances"
 * SF Chronicle: "All the performances are superb, but those of McConaughey and Harrelson are in a class by themselves"
 * LA Times: "The dance they do together here is work of a very high order, and all the reason you need to watch."
 * Boston Globe: "Harrelson and McConaughey were compelling enough that I powered through the first four episodes HBO sent for review."
 * WaPo: "McConaughey and Harrelson both deliver strong and coolly controlled performances"
 * Independent: "the two lead performances are outstanding"
 * Telegraph: "acting brilliance from McConaughey and Harrelson"
 * New Yorker: "Harrelson’s strong performance...McConaughey gives an exciting performance"
 * Entertainment Weekly: "a tour de force for stars Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey"
 * Variety: "Harrelson and McConaughey are both at their best"


 * Not commenting on acting quality
 * USA Today
 * Arts Fuse
 * Slant

I guess mentally I converted "everyone who singled out one of the two singled out McConaughey" into "most reviewers thought McConaughey was better"; the two aren't equivalent. How about just making this "many critics"? And would we need to add some of the bigger names as refs, perhaps with an in-text comment listing the other sources? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Something like "Many critics praised McConaughey's performance, in particular[1...n]" makes the claim less "definitive"/original czar  20:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Now changed to 'Many critics complimented the work of both lead actors, often singling out McConaughey for additional praise, with his work described as "jaw-droppingly great" and "simply magnetic".' I need the sentence to make it clear that Harrelson was praised too, though not as much as McConaughey.  How much citation would you suggest for the first two clauses?  There are ten praising both and ten more singling out McConaughey; I've used the SF Chronicle, Washington Post, and LA Times for the first point, and NYT, Vanity Fair, and Time for the second point.  That gives three heavyweight sources for each point.  I could include a comment pointing to the other sources, or pointing to this talk page listing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a shot: "While critics praised the work of both lead actors,[1] many highlighted McConaughey's performance as exceptional.[2]" (Second clause could be clearer—what was exceptional? I'd drop the quote clause for reasons above.) I'd stack all the refs, personally, similar to Sabre_Wulf. I think the citation is convincing from less from the stature of the sources than the number of reliable sources that make the same claim czar  15:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Flashback? (Don't know, didn't read plot, though that shouldn't necessarily be a requirement for understanding another section.) In any event, is this sentence needed? If it was praised as a thematic device, say so, that's the most important part.
 * I don't think we can expect every paragraph in an article to stand on its own; part of structuring an article is arranging that certain information is available to a reader by the time it is discussed. What's being referred to here is that the series splices scenes in the 1990s with scenes 17 years later; the review says: "They're deeply flawed, and those flaws explain the differences between the men they were and the men they become.  If that transformation makes sense (and in the first four hours made available for preview, at least, it does), the credit goes to the efforts the actors and Pizzolatto have extended to show us the older men lurking in their younger selves. The physical part is relatively easy: It's an issue of makeup, wigs, padding and posture (though to be sure, the transformation of McConaughey from Olympian-level buff to dissipated drunk is nothing short of amazing). The truly impressive achievement is the way Harrelson and McConaughey carry their performances through, showing us the nascent younger weaknesses that will arise full-blown in their older incarnations."  Is there a better way to paraphrase this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not as a rule, but context usually makes the sentence better anyway (unrelated, but if the device is called a "flashback" in sources, I'd use that word consistently throughout the article so that the reader can easily search for other places where the word is used). "USA Today praised the actors' ability to forecast their characters' flaws (neuroses? don't know the details) from hints (a peppering?) during the flashback scenes." czar  20:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * After some thought, I've cut the sentence. It's not easy to paraphrase, but it could be done; however, given that only one reviewer commented on this it's better to stick to more general comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm in the camp that this is an extraordinary claim (and likely original research). Others might be more lenient and others might be harsher. Best to avoid, anyway. How can we make a definitive statement about the characterization across all reviewers? Unless a source says so, I don't see it. I'd save the blanket statements for when they can be supported with a ref dump. And the next sentence already does that work for you. (Why are two papers mentioned by name and the third is anonymized as "criticized by others"?) If anything, the dissenting source is the one to mention by name
 * Agreed on all points. I've attributed the third source.  The sentence was meant to introduce the subsequent quotes, but it overdoes it.  Changed to "The characterization was not universally praised:". Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "The characterization was not universally praised:" is still "definitive" in voice (how would we know about universal?) Alt: "The characterization received mixed reviews:" or even just "Critics were mixed on Cohle's speeches" to avoid "characterization" (a bit academic) czar  20:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed to use your wording. Personally I think it's OK to use "not universally", as one dissenting voice makes it clearly true, and in this case there were multiple comments from heavyweight sources, but I think your wording is better anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

watch passive voice and "by whom"
 * Sources praising her performance are NY Times, Boston Globe, Independent, Variety, AV Club, & Grantland. This is another situation where I think the statement is justified, and it would be silly to have six cites supporting it.  I also don't think it makes sense to single out one source, even a major one such as the NYT, which would be the natural way of avoiding the passive voice.  Is there a better way to handle it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The sentence is more about Monaghan's success in unfavorable circumstances, but it looks like only one source implies it? Was Monaghan's performance standout? NYer didn't think so. If it was, you can add a sentence on that, but it would work better if you could cite sources that say that Monaghan did the best with what she was given. For the sake of generalizing this example, I think it's good practice to always include the subject, whether it be a single source or a vaguer "critics/reviewers": "Monaghan was praised for her performance" makes the reader ask "by whom"—a director, the NYT, or a two-bit critic? The vaguer critics/reviewers at least has the authority of coming from multiple potentially two-bit opinions.  czar  15:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

this is the juice of the sentence—what risks?
 * This is cited to Uproxx and The Independent. Here are a couple of the key quotes.  Uproxx: "Pizzolatto wrote all eight episodes, and Cary Fukunaga (“Jane Eyre”) directed them all, an unusual arrangement that pays enormous dividends."  Independent: "Pizzolatto and Fukunaga seem intent on throwing the rulebook away, creating something that's closer in feel to a James Lee Burke novel than a standard television thriller. Their level of control - unusually for a US drama every episode is written by Pizzolatto and directed by Fukunaga - allows them to take a number of risks from long monologues about seemingly tangential subjects to the almost dreamlike pacing, Fukunaga's camera drifting over the Louisiana landscape, the children hanging out on their bikes, the boarded-up houses, the roads seemingly heading nowhere."  I shied away from trying to paraphrase the last part of this: perhaps "...let the show take risks: the pacing, dialogue and cinematography all departed at times from the expectations for a television drama"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I like czar  20:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK; made the change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"by whom?" Without qualification, this sentence is made to read like gospel. It either needs a ton of refs to back it up or else to be watered down extraordinary statements require extraordinary proof (two is not the same as "most")
 * The above two points are very similar, so I'll try and address them together; they both summarize multiple review points. Before I do that, though, I'd like to wait and see how the discussion goes on the first point above, about the comparison between McConaughey and Harrelson, since the same issue -- taking multiple comments from a broad range of sources -- is likely to come up here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Stopping here for now to let you comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you take another look now? On the remaining points above and tags in the article:
 * 'Fukunaga was praised for his [by whom?] atmospheric and "hauntingly beautiful" cinematography': my feeling is that the cite at the end of this clause answers the "by whom?" question; that's what cites are for. Not everything has to be attributed inline.
 * "Most reviewers" changed to "Other reviewers" in the last sentence.
 * "Pizzolatto's writing" has a clarify tag; not sure what more can be done here -- he was the writer for the entire series, and it was his writing that was criticized. Can you give an example of what would clarify this?  Maybe "Pizzolatto's screenwriting"?  Though I think the sources don't use that phrase.
 * I agree that not every attribution needs to be inline, but I would say (as above) that mystery single reviewers (was praised by whom?) should be. Because if that single reviewer statement is important enough to state on its own, then the reviewer is important as well. Otherwise, I think that phrasing risks making the statement look more definitive than it really is. Re: "Pizzolatto's writing", I left a "reason" parameter in the clarify template—Is it the dialogue, the plot, character development, etc.? Too broad to say that "the writing was criticized" unless it was genuinely all the writing. czar  15:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The two points supporting the criticism of Pizzolatto's writing are "still searching for a rhythm, and with very awkward jumps in time. Pizzolatto’s scripts have their moments but, self-consciously literary, they also are painfully overwritten. The stories are strewn with the expected Southern gothic characters, often hard to understand with their thick backwater accents. And the interior setup got tiring over my three hours of watching: in a room in a police station" and "But the writing is a bit overblown and the pacing static — at times downright glacial. I kept waiting for that edge-of-your-seat “ahh” moment, which never arrived." This doesn't really single out a single aspect of the writing, so I changed it to 'Pizzolatto's scripts drew occasional criticism as "self-consciously literary" and overwritten'.
 * Rewrote the Fukunaga sentence to attribute inline -- I see your point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Have now also reworked the "ambitious and deep" line; I think that's everything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * just checking, since it's been a week: are we done here? Any more comments? And a question for both you and : would you mind if I added the before and after versions of the reception section to WP:Copyediting reception sections as an example? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks fine. And you're always free to use my edits however you'd like Eye close font awesome.svg czar  17:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't mind at all, knock yourself out. I would also ask if you'd like to be a co-nominatior for the next FA nomination since your edits were pretty substantial. Again, many thanks for your work! DAP  💅 18:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's generous of you; thank you very much. I would like to be a co-nominator.  Are you planning to nominate soon?  I'll try to give the article another once-over today, though if I recall correctly from the last FAC review I did there wasn't much I found to comment on outside the reception section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I've completed a copyedit pass and I think it's ready to be nominated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * awesome. I've created the nomination so looks like everything is good to go. DAP  💅 17:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK -- I have it watchlisted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)