Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alexander Cameron Rutherford


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Raul654 10:55, 9 March 2009.

Alexander Cameron Rutherford

 * Nominator(s): Sarcasticidealist (talk)

After a good article review from User:Dana boomer and an absolutely first rate peer review from User:Brianboulton (as well as quite a bit of my own attention - this is a self-nom), I think I can safely say that this article isn't a waste of FAC reviewers' time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments I look forward to reviewing this in the next day or so. Two initial concerns:
 * Now here's a problem I don't see very often: the lead is very long and often too specific. Cut down to basics. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds which was interrupted by the following:
 * You should have seen it before I cut it down as a result of Brianboulton's comments! I'll have another go at tightening it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed nearly 1K of text from the lead. Better? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * More of an aesthetic concern, but I feel there's too many pictures. You don't necessariy have to remove anything, but at the very least I do question the need for pictures of other politicians who aren't Rutherford. Something to think about. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My aim was one per section (and I didn't quite hit that, as "Public works" and "Later political career" don't have any). When I included images of people other than the subject, it was usually to prevent what I saw as an excessively long gap without any (for example, without Sifton and Boyle, there'd be four consecutive sections without a picture).  That said, I'm happy to remove some and would welcome any specific suggestions of which should go. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I will have no difficulty in confirming support when these points have received attention. Brianboulton (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have addressed almost all of your specific concerns, and tried to take some action to deal with the general ones as well. With regards to the mammoth sentence, I have divided it into three; I haven't removed any detail from there, however (as I have from elsewhere in the article), because I continue to be of the view that half a paragraph devoted to Rutherford's community endeavors is both reasonable and very much proportional to the weight it's given in sources (chiefly the Babcock biography, which deals with this sort of thing at great length).  I'll go through the article again tomorrow to cull some additional detail and demented sentence constructions, but if you look at it between now and then I'd certainly welcome additional guidance. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Defintitely take out "dotage". WesleyDodds (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Support: I am satisfied with the extent to which my concerns have been addressed, and can now give full support. This is a fine article, which impressed me during peer review and which has benefitted from further attention since then. Brianboulton (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Futher comments
 * "He graduated from there in 1876, and taught for a year in Osgoode before going to Montreal to study arts and civil law at McGill University.[2] He was awarded degrees in both in 1881, and joined the Ottawa law firm of Scott, McTavish and McCracken where he was articled for four years under the tutelage of Richard William Scott." It took me a few passes to realize a word wasn't missing. Consider rephrasing. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds which was interrupted by the following:
 * Which word seemed to be missing, and where? That should help me know how to rephrase. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The part I bold just seems awakward in general, I might work better attached to the preceeding sentence. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "He stopped in Calgary before taking the train north to South Edmonton.[4] He was excited by the small town's growth potential, and pleased to find that the dry air relieved his bronchitis". Which city's growth potential? The latter paragraphs make it clear it's supposed to be South Edmonton. Consider that, why even mention his stop in Calgary? —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds which was interrupted by the following:
 * I made a change that I hope will address this concern. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The importance of him stopping in Calgary is still unclear. I suggest removing it. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, okay, done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Rutherford campaigned on improved roads, resource development, simplification of territorial ordinances, and—in what would become a theme of his political career—increased educational funding". Change to "campaigned on a platform of". —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds which was interrupted by the following:
 * Done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "His defeat of two years previous still fresh in his mind, his platform this time included a call for a redrawing of the territory's electoral boundaries on the grounds that the current Edmonton riding was gerrymandered in McCauley's favour". Could either be two sentences or could be separated by a semicolon instead of a comma. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds which was interrupted by the following:
 * Done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What's a riding? —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds which was interrupted by the following:
 * Man, this comes up almost every article I write. You'd think I'd eventually realize that the term isn't in common usage outside of Canada, but no.  Wikilinked first mention. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "It at first looked as though he would run unopposed". I wouldn't recommend starting a paragraph off that way. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds which was interrupted by the following:
 * I've merged the two paragraphs, as they were reasonably short and thematically-related. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "He served" I know it's his article, but with the start of a new paragraph you are free to say his name again without sounding redundant. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds which was interrupted by the following:
 * Done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "He was considered a possible member of Haultain's executive council". Can you clarify who considered him (if the source doesn't say, then don't sweat it). —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds which was interrupted by the following:
 * It doesn't (it uses the passive "he was mentioned as", and sources it to a 1903 newspaper to which I do not have access). The same applies to the ones you raise below: the sources (both Babcock and Thomas) use the passive voice often to convey what was apparently a general belief of those who were paying attention at the time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "When the new federal constituency of Strathcona[18] was formed in advance of the 1904 election . . ." Put references at the end of punctuation. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds which was interrupted by the following:
 * Done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "it was expected that the Liberal Laurier would recommend . . ." Who expected? —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds which was interrupted by the following:
 * As above. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Haultain, who was a Conservative federally but who was thought to be a potential leader of a coalition government".  Same issue as above. I'll stop listing all these, but make sure to see if you can clarify any of them using your sources. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds  which was interrupted by the following:
 * As above. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Selection as Premier" discusses the formation of the government, but never outright says that Rutherford became Premier, which makes it odd when you get to the next section, which begins "Rutherford was Premier . . ." —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds which was interrupted by the following:
 * "On September 2, Bulyea asked Rutherford to form the first government of Alberta.[26] After accepting..."  I thought that was sufficiently clear. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As a silly American, it's not intuitive to me that the premier is the head of goverment, nor would it be to anyone who doesn't know anything about Canadian politics. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not exactly unique to Canada. And besides that, I think assuming some bare degree of familiarity with the context in which the subject operates is standard.  For example, FA Grover Cleveland includes the phrase "the electoral votes gave Cleveland a majority of 219–182", without actually explaining what an electoral vote is; it presumes that most people interested in a presidential biography will have some knowledge of how the President is selected, and that those who don't are free to follow wikilinks.  Now, with that mini-rant out of the way, I've gone ahead and clarified it.  But it was under protest. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Of special interest . . ." Why and to whom? —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds which was interrupted by the following:
 * Changed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you need to list all the miners demands here. Summarize more effectively. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds which was interrupted by the following:
 * Respectfully disagree; I use fewer than forty words explaining the miners' demands, which seem to me to be central to the entire incident. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel you could still more effectively summarize it. It kind of rambles on. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After the first sentence, the first paragraph of "Public works" seems to lose focus on Rutherford as the main topic. He returns as the focus in the second paragraph, but until then I feel like I'm getting a lot of information that doesn't specifically deal with Rutherford. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds which was interrupted by the following:
 * Your point is well-taken; however, it's a trait of Westminster-style parliamentary democracies that virtually all executive and legislative action stems from the head of government. Anything the Alberta government did, and the vast majority of what the Alberta legislature did, is relevant to directly relevant to Rutherford. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be, but remember to keep Rutherford the individual as the focus. The article is the narrative and Rutherford is the protagonist, if you get my point. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I still need to go through the "Later life" section. Aside from these issues, I'm leaning towards support. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Further comments the second
 * "After resigning as Premier, Rutherford continued to sit as a Liberal MLA". It's been a few days since I've read the article so I may have missed it, but what's a Liberal MLA? —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds which was interrupted by the following:
 * I've wikilinked the term's earlier occurrence.
 * Ref 78 needs to go to the end of the sentence. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds which was interrupted by the following:
 * Is that in the MOS somewhere (that's a sincere question - I haven't been able to find it, but that doesn't prove anything)? If not, I prefer it where it is, since if I put it at the end of the sentence it could give an inaccurate impression of what material it's supporting.
 * "In advance of the 1913 election . . .", "In advance of the 1911 federal election . . ." Rather awkward phrasing. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds which was interrupted by the following:
 * I've changed both for the sake of variety ("In advance of the 1904 election..." occurred earlier in the article).
 * Both the later polictical career and professional career sections start out the exact same way. Rephrase —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds which was interrupted by the following:
 * Done.
 * "Besides his legal activities . . ." I know you mean his activities in the law profession, but the phrasing suggests that he's going to do something illegal before you see the rest of the sentence. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds which was interrupted by the following:
 * Done.
 * I'd suggest placing the short second paragraph in "Death and legacy" at the end of the third paragraph, or integrating the two paragraphs together by some other means. —This is part of a comment by WesleyDodds which was interrupted by the following:
 * I've actually fused it with the third paragraphs; thoughts?
 * It would work better with the other paragraph, since that paragraph discusses some form of his legacy. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. Also, just as a formality: have you made sure to read and review all the major sources available on Rutherford? You probably have, but this is something I've had to ask more and more at FACs because people haven't tracked down everything available, so I just want to put my mind at ease. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. The Babcock biography is the only book-length biography that has been published about him, and the Roome chapter the only other scholarly biographical work of which I am aware.  Both cite the Thomas book heavily (the Thomas book has also been cited elsewhere at the authoritative work about the Liberal Party's time in power).  Any other biographical work would be institution-specific (the U of A, the Friends of Rutherford House, etc.), would be less comprehensive than what I've used, and would tend towards hagiography.  It is likely that there have been some academic papers on elements of Rutherford's career of which I'm not aware, and there are definitely books about more general subjects (the history of Alberta) or tangentially-related subjects (the history of the University of Alberta) that I haven't used, but I've definitely hit the main ones. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I definitely hope there will be far more politician FAs to follow this one. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No dabs to speak of. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref comments -- Errors found using WP:REFTOOLS.
 * Babcock 27	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
 * Babcock 27	Multiple references are given the same name -- TRU  CO   02:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are mistaken; I only see one occurrence, at footnote 29. Can you point me to the other one? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC) (ec) Never mind, I misunderstood; fixed now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. The "B" instance of footnote 29 is formatted as when the "A" instance is already formatted like that, so you should just have the B instance as .--  TRU  CO   02:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference formatting is up to speed.-- TRU  CO   02:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Very well-done. Karanacs (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Image concerns as follows:
 * File:John Robert Boyle.JPG &mdash; which part of "Edmunton Public Library" is this photo found in? The image is also "looking" away from the text; would you consider File:John R. Boyle, lawyer.jpg?
 * From the Hazel McCruaig Collection


 * File:Rutherford articling.jpg, File:Alexander Rutherford 1895.jpg, File:Rutherford anniversary.jpg, File:Rutherford in law office.jpg &mdash; I have no doubts that these were private photos (coming from Rutherford's daughter), but can we get the accession number or whatever ID assigned to these photos by the library that possesses them? I presume these were from the University of Alberta Archives?
 * From the Provincial Archives of Alberta

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Rutherford family.jpg &mdash; this is most likely a donated private photo (very unlikely the government would take a family photo), so we can ignore issues of Crown Copyrights, but can we have the Object ID or Standard number of this photo?
 * File:Premier Rutherford.jpg File:Chancellor Rutherford.jpg (wrong file) &mdash; I had an issue with this as the PAA claims the Alberta Department of Community Development created this, hencing placing it under Crown Copyright; concensus on Commons was to keep on the basis that it was likely the picture was published, one that I do not totally agree with. Nonetheless, this seems to be moot, as it seems this is part of Ernest Brown's collection, based on these photos (A and B).  The PAA has labeled the ADCD as creator for some private works, so is there agreement that Ernest Brown took this image and we can simply class it PD as a private old photo?
 * File:Young R. B. Bennett.JPG &mdash; in the same vein, I suspect this is a photo from the Harry Pollard Collection (whose ID prefixes in the PAA start with "P"). I am in the midst of investigations, but if anyone can confirm this, that would be great.
 * File:Arthur Sifton2.jpg &mdash; with no ID or creator information (or even publishing details), how do we know this is not an unpublished photo under Crown Copyright (taken by a government photographer)?
 * Re: Boyle. I've included a link to the portion of the EPL website where I found the old photo, but I've also replaced the old photo in the article with the new one, as you suggested.
 * Re: Hazel McCuaig images. I've included all of the information I have on the description pages.  I'm not aware that they are currently found in any library's collection.
 * Re: Rutherford family: Again, I've included all the information that I have. This seems sufficient to establish that the image is in the public domain, as you note.
 * Re: Chancellor Rutherford: Sounds good.
 * Re: Sifton: I've added an object number, but the item doesn't appear to be available online. If the image is subject to crown copyright, which is not clear, it need only to have been published by 1958 to be in the public domain.  Given that its subject died in 1921, the odds of the government taking a portrait of a Premier of Alberta for whom very few photographs exist and it not being published until after 1958 seem trivially low.  This is much the same logic as applied in the deletion discussions on the Commons of two similar images, both of which resulted in consensus to keep. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For the McCluaig collection, could we have its physical location (Archives Canada said it can be found at the Edmunton Archives, and the University of Alberta). It seems that the family photo on the PAA might also be from the McCluaig collection, is this correct?  As for the Chancellor picture, it was a mistake, I am actually talking about the Premier photo (which was the subject of dispute).  Do you agree that the Premier photo was taken by Brown?  Jappalang (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any way of ascertaining the physical location of the photographs taken from the McCuaig collection; the collections in the City of Edmonton archives and the University of Alberta archives appear to be distinct, and without visiting Edmonton, which I don't expect to do for several months, I don't see how I could determine which these photographs came from. Is there a reason that the physical location needs to be includes?
 * The Premier photo certainly appears to have been taken at the same place as the Brown photos, but I'm not at all sure that we have sufficient evidence to say that it was taken by the same person. You normally seem adverse to "reasonable guesses" of this variety when it comes to photographs (see your nomination of this very photo for deletion on Commons for an example).  Is there a reason you think the reasonable guess here is more reasonable? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On the same principle as obtaining the ID of the pictures, the physical location would help others if they wish to locate and verify the documents (the basis for requiring such information). I am curious.  Where did you access the collection to obtain these photos, if not from the university or Edmunton archive?
 * The "reasonable guess" to keep is "I am sure the photo got published before 1946, but I am not going to provide evidence, nor do I know where were they published in." That is not a good assurance; items in archives are not certain to be published (National Geographics and newspaper media have taken and kept many photos, of which only a minority are published; the same goes for government works).  My reasoning is based on two parts.  First, the photos certifiably taken by Brown were at the same location and time&mdash;the awarding of the honorary degree to Strathcona.  Second, the PAA has, in error, classified private photos as their own creations&mdash;as pointed out above.  Which is more reasonable&mdash;a call that is based on emotion and vaguery (would the recollection be correct, he might have mistaken UoA's circulation of the photo in their scholarship FAQ in recent times as "must have been published long ago"), or one that has evidence to back it up?  Jappalang (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On another note, Sifton's portrait is on the PAA (A2685). However, it is "oval-framed", and other likewise photos surround it.  A bit weird...  Nonetheless, it is similar to File:1905albertacabinet.jpg and could be a good case for a published list of Legislative members.  Jappalang (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I scanned the McCuaig images out of a book (the Babcock biography), which does not contain any further information about their collection. Indeed, I believe the book was published before Hazel McCuaig's death, so it's likely that the photos were in her possession at the time, and not in any library.
 * Are we sure that the picture in the article was taken on the occasion of the honorary degree being awarded to Strathcona? If so, how?  I also continue to disagree with your approach to the other images, but that's probably not relevant to this FAC.
 * Re Sifton: If that's sufficient to convince you of pre-1946 publication, then I'd say go for it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I presume all the photos (even those from the PAA) were scanned from this book then.  I filled in the book information in the source.
 * Regarding the premier photo, take a look. The image from the PAA distinctly shows that it is a cropped image (notice the cropped off arm of the person on Rutherford's right).  The premier's robe is also the same as in the Edmunton's photos.  Lastly the fencing and the potted plant to the rear of Rutherford in the PAA photo, corresponds exactly to the one in the rear of the Edmunton's photos.  There is no other year that Strathcona would be at the University except in the fall of 1909.  It is elementary deduction.
 * I am very close to striking the Sifton image; it belongs to this composition of the Third Legislative Assembly. If you look closely at the bottom right, the label states the studio that made this composition (the last word, I am pretty confident, is "Studio"; the first, I have problems reading).  Thus, this qualifies as private work; but let me do some further investigation first.  Jappalang (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Very well. As I interpret your remarks, you don't require any further response from me; please correct me if I am mistaken about that.  As well, note that the city is spelled with an O - Edmonton.  And despite my rather brusque tone earlier, thank you for your work on these images. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sifton's photo was taken by Bridgeman Studio, and Bennett's was confirmed to be Pollard's work. As such, I instated Brown as the Premier's author.  Image issues resolved.  Jappalang (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. There are lots of technical faults, and the way the ideas proceed is often not logical. I've read just the opening couple of paras. The whole text, I see, needs to be carefully massaged, preferably by someone new to it.
 * Second sentence: "he studied and practised law in law Ottawa before moving with his family". Um ...
 * Opening: comma after "Alberta", perhaps.
 * "In keeping with the territorial custom Rutherford ran as an independent, though he generally supported the territorial administration of Premier Frederick W. A. G. Haultain. At the federal level, however, Rutherford was a Liberal." The logic that centres on "however" is unclear to the readers: was Haultain a Conservative? Or is your point the independent vs any party affiliation?
 * Second para: now hang on, you told us that he won a seat in the NT Leg. Assembly, but we've missed that bit of news about the Albert ?Leg. Ass., and have time-warped straight to his accession to the premiership of that province.
 * "Speed limits" ... for trains? For motor (road) vehicles? Or any number of other things?
 * A few phrases in the second para have the slight feel of having been taken directly from another text (I noticed this in the last sentence). I may well be wrong, though.
 * "The government was also faced with labour unrest in the coal mining industry,"—"Also" is usually a bad idea. Where were we told about other labour unrest the govt. had faced? And as a back-reference, it's in tension with the paragraph break. Just remove it. "Striking" a commission to deal with labour unrest is an unfortunate choice of wording. Tony   (talk)  04:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First point: Not sure I see the problem. Wow, not sure how I missed that; Wikialf fixed it, in any event.
 * Comma after Alberta: I'm not clear where you're talking about.
 * "However": Given the order of the sentences, I thought it was clear that the "however" distinguished his federal Liberal inclination from his territorial independent status.
 * There's no time warp: he wasn't elected to the Alberta Legislative Assembly before becoming Premier because the Alberta Legislative Assembly didn't exist until after he became Premier.
 * Speed limits: The term is already wikilinked, and the target article makes clear the sense in which it is used.
 * I've just checked against my sources to make sure I wasn't unconsciously lifting their text. I wasn't.
 * "Also": Agreed and removed.
 * "Striking": Agreed and changed.
 * I'm prepared to accept that the text may need massaging, but I'm afraid that I need more feedback than the above if I'm going to take any action on it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * SI asked me to look over the text, and while I have made a few small changes, I personally do not see a lot of technical faults on my first pass. I will admit up front that such technicalities are likely my greatest weakness as a writer.  I do see a tendency to place many statements in parentheses that make a habit of diluting the point of the sentences they are placed in the middle of.  I am going to leave it for a day or so, and then take a thorough second pass.  Regardless, I am inclined to support this article, as I find it to be an extremely well written and thorough biography of Alberta's first premier.  There are two glaring questions that I have, however:
 * "Aberhart rescinded his acceptance of the Kerr's invitation (and later removed the senate's authority—except, ironically, the authority to award honorary degrees)" (Later Life --> University of Alberta) What authority did Kerr remove exactly?  I am presuming the authority to award degrees, but am not certain.
 * Keeping in line with Rutherford's committment to Education, I am rather surprised there is no mention of the Alexander Rutherford Scholarship, which continues to be awarded in his name to this day.
 * Cheers, Resolute 04:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. I've explained the senate's previous responsibilities, but managed to create another parenthetical while doing so.  I've also inserted a sentence about the Rutherford scholarship (rather ungrateful of me to have left it out, really). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Lean support - I couldn't see anything to oppose over. I don't like how many of the images drop down into the next heading. This just causes aesthetic problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm bad with aesthetics; if you want to rearrange them in any way, I am extremely unlikely to object. As I told WesleyDodds above, I'd also be happy to entertain suggestions for the removal of certain images, if you think that would help. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, the image location is not why I am leaning. I just haven't had a chance to do a very thorough look. However, from what I have seen there are no problems (hence the support). This should pass as an FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if the images have nothing to do with whether you support this, you're still more than welcome to tidy them up. Not that you need my permission in any event. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.