Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Château-Gaillard/archive1


 * 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:11, 16 January 2010.

Château-Gaillard

 * Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Here we have an article about Richard the Lionheart's favourite castle. There's not an enormous amount to say about it because the site was built in one phase, a monumental effort that was mostly complete in just two years, and the most important parts of its history were the first few years of its existence. The article details the main points about the castle, touching on its history and its importance in the context of castle building, and I believe it is comprehensive. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to review the article. Nev1 (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the letters on the plan should be explained further in the caption, & tied into the text. Also the photos, or at least one of them, should identify the larger lumps left, and the direction of view. Barthélemy, who I used on Castle, says that Richard's ""manor" [palace] was situated outside and below the citadel" - not sure if this is H on the plan or outside the castle altogether. A couple of lines on Richard's career would give context - he'd been back from the Crusades for less than 2 years in 1196. In "Walter de Coutances travelled to Rome in the winter of 1196.." - is that 1195-96 or 1196-97? Best to specify. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I can explain the letters on the plan; I can't find Viollet-le-Duc's explanation of the plan. Allen Brown has a plan in his book (Allen Brown's English Castles) but doesn't go into as much detail as Viollet-le-Duc; in fact all he does is lable the baileys, moats, and the keep.
 * As for the other points, I completely agree and have made the changes. The captions now better explain the images, "the winter of 1196" has been clarified. How's this for more background? Nev1 (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Other points fine. V-D's plan, or an equivalent, ought to be online in French somewhere. I may have a look over the next few days, & I need to give it a thorough read-through, but we seem on track here. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alt text added (I knew I'd forgotten something). I've not added any alt text for the plan though as it would pretty much be repeating the caption. Nev1 (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some alt text needs to be there. It needn't repeat the caption, as the image contains many details not in the caption. However, if you think the diagram merely repeats the adjacent article (not the caption), please use a placeholder as per WP:ALT. Also, the location map needs alt text; please use the map_alt parameter of Infobox Military Structure. The alt text you added looks very good; thanks! Eubulides (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Plan.Chateau.Gaillard.png is missing alt text. Jappalang (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How's this? Nev1 (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it all looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I thought the panoramic photographs added a lot to the article - rather nice. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The panoramic pictures were a lucky find. I couldn't decide which to use so thought I'd go for both! The coloured image gives a fuller view of the castle, but the black and white photo is a personal favourite as it's just stunning. Nev1 (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Image review: all images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. However, File:Plan.Chateau.Gaillard.png and File:Siege.Chateau.Gaillard.png would do better to have more accurate PD templates and at least descriptions of their authors and page numbers in the Dictionary. The FAC, however, does not need to be hold up by this. Jappalang (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support:
 * "He went with Philip II of France as each was wary of the other invading his territory in his absence."
 * Suggest a change to "He went with Philip II of France as each was wary that the other might invade his territory in his absence."
 * Done. Nev1 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "... the Pope Celestine III ..."
 * I doubt "the" is needed.
 * Gone. Nev1 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "... were drenched in a rain of blood ..."
 * A "rain of blood"? Was this a metaphor for violence?  Maybe some clarification is in order?
 * This is literal (I was going to add a wiki-link, but Wikipedia doesn't have an article on blood rain... yet; if Malleus or Parrot of Doom doesn't swoop on the article I intend to write it myself), and hopefully the following sentence ("While some of his advisers thought the rain was an evil omen, Richard was undeterred") makes that clear now. Nev1 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I hazard it is some sort of natural phenomenon by which red-stained water precipitates?  The "omen" bit helps a bit, but readers might still wonder if it is a supernatural occurence.  I would suggest enclosing "rain of blood" in quotations to make it distinct as taken from the original text.  Of course, as you said, an article on rain of blood (even if a stub) would resolve the issue as well.  Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the quotation marks. I've found what looks like an interesting article on occurrences of blood rain in medieval literature but haven't got round to reading it yet. The Red rain in Kerala is a modern equivalent (and apparantly you get red rain in Britain due to dust from the Sahara), but in the Middle Ages I suppose it must have been disconcerting and it probably did seem supernatural. Nev1 (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "On 6 April 1199, Richard died due to an infected arrow wound on his shoulder."
 * A brief on what circumstance he received the wound is perhaps in order (name and link the battle or such).
 * I've added that it the wound was sustained while besieging Chalus, but I'm wary of going into more detail as it didn't happen at Château-Gaillard. Nev1 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "The curtain walls are studded by flanking towers, intended to provide enfilading fire, were cylindrical, typical of contemporary towers."
 * A word might be missing from this sentence, or it requires breaking up. Either way, the current sentence structure "... are studded by flanking towers, ..., were cylindrical, ..." seems weird.
 * I've split the sentence and rephrased it to read "The curtain walls are studded by flanking towers which were intended to provide enfilading fire; the towers were cylindrical, typical of contemporary towers". Nev1 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "There is nothing similar to keep of Château-Gaillard in England, ..."
 * Is a word missing?
 * Reworded to "In England there is nothing similar to Château-Gaillard's keep, ..." Nev1 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Overall, a fine piece on a castle of the Lion. I am leaning to support on resolution of the above. Jappalang (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The "rain of blood" stuff is easy to take care of, so I will just throw my support in now. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, not nearly comprehensive [failing 1 b)], and don't see how it can be resolved in this session. E.g. "In the 1990s, archaeological excavations were carried out at Château-Gaillard; in conjunction with the archaeological work, efforts were made to preserve the structure." Fascinating ... would expect a paragraph if this were a realistic FA candidate, but in fact that's my lot. #  Innovations and layout is just awash with such assertions, that just hint at info but then move on. Fair enough for a B, not for an FA. Appears that most of the material on this castle is in the French language, but there's nothing in the main references section in that language; maybe that's the problem?  Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The most important French source not directly referenced in the article is Le Château-Gaillard et les fortresses des XIIe et XIIIe siècles by Pierre Héliot. Now an article dedicated to the site in a renowned journal on castles is essential. Although it is not directly referenced by Wikipedia's article, Allen Brown's English Castles uses the Héliot article so I don't see this as a big problem; it is represented in the article, albeit indirectly. As for the excavations in the 1990s, the conclusion was essentially that more work needs to be undertaken on the site as a whole.
 * I realise this might be an annoyance, but could you specifically list your problems with the innovations and layout section? Nev1 (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Stuff about the excavations should be in the article, and yes it is a problem if you don't utilise the main sources for a topic you wanna get to FA.
 * The section is question is just to fleet-worded on the lay-out aspect (it's ok on the innovations, though even this needs more context), jumping from topic to topic (in one para, from the gatehouse to a quote about how great the castle is). "Liddiard emphasises the importance of the throne room in the keep; one of only two rooms in the keep (the other was an antechamber), the throne would have sat in front of a large window" ... why is this the first time we hear about the throne-room, and in passing? "Château-Gaillard consists of three baileys – an inner, a middle, and an outer with the main entrance to the castle – and a keep, also called a donjon, in the inner-bailey" ... and that's all we hear of those. And so on. Ideally, I'd like to see sections for each part of the castle, even if short ones, descibing them physically, archaeologically, historically. and functionally. Not sentences interwoven with random quotes in a huge confused paragraph. Do you have the local site guide? This would be useful. For an FA, you'd want if not to print it thing off and take it there, at least to find it useful. This section of the article is basically useless except for the map and the citations. It looks like a guide that's done the history section, and then got cut off except for a rushed summary of the rest. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We're going to have to agree to disagree about the sources; as an English castle Château-Gaillard is covered in English-language books which refer to the French-language sources. I would obviously like to have more French sources, but they are not indispensable as their subject material is covered by the other sources (apart from the stuff about the most recent excavations which doesn't seem to have filtered into English-langauge sources yet).
 * On reflection, the innovations section could do with some restructuring as it is perhaps confusing and disjointed. I agree that notes on function would be useful, however separate sections are excessive and would involve a lot of repetition. The castle was essentially built in one phase (one of the sources comments on this as unusual as most castles have several construction phases over their lifetime (I should have included that actually) so should be treated holistically. I don't think this needs to be confusing, it just needs some rearranging and explanation. Unfortunately, I don't have the site guide. I'll also see what else can be added on the excavations, but can't promise that a whole lot will be added. Anyway, that gives me something to do on Boxing Day! Nev1 (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would obviously like to have more French sources, but they are not indispensable as their subject material is covered by the other sources
 * Obviously, you can't know that unless you access them. By not using them you not only limit the comprehensiveness of the article (that other sources use them is really another argument for using them, not against ), but you deprive yourself of the opportunity to know whether it is comprehensive. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added more on the excavations (and have asked someone to doubled check my interpretation of the French source) and reorganised the innovations and layout section. What do you think of the revised section, does it work? Nev1 (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's better, and I appreciate that you're making an effort to address my concerns, I really do. But it's still very far from comprehensive. I understand you have a problem getting and reading the sources, but if you can't use the main sources then you can't make the article comprehensive, and so you'd probably be better putting your energy into a topic where you can. The architecture section ("Innovations and layout") is still many times smaller than it should be. Even now the French article has more text and pics on this matter.
 * Incidentally, you might wanna double check some of your dates.
 * King Henry V of England besieged Château-Gaillard for six months before capturing it in 1418; the French retook the castle in 1420, but it soon fell into English hands again.
 * The French wiki gives December 9, which obviously may not be reliable, but this map in the The Cambridge illustrated atlas of warfare: the Middle Ages gives December 8 (if I'm reading it right). I myself have gotten dates wrong in articles because I write so many and make the occasional mistranscription. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether this article becomes an FA, I'll try to make it as complete as I can. It is currently the comprehensive English-language article on the castle available and provides useful links to anyone wanting more. As for dates, I double checked with the source used and it does state 1420 rather than December 1419, but I'm more inclined to believe that Cambridge history so I've changed it.
 * As for comprehensiveness, all I can is that the article should "neglect no major facts or details and place the subject in context". An article can be comprehensive without being complete. The most important events in the castle's history were its construction and the first siege, hence why there's so much detail. In the history's of Henry V of England's life, the fall of Château-Gaillard to the French is given barely a footnote. Could you suggest what more should be added to the innovations section? I'm not going to harass you to change your oppose as I think it's perfectly valid and one I should really have foreseen. I was perhaps lulled into complacency by the amount of information I was able to find in English. Thanks for the assistance and pointers, you've helped expand the article further than I thought realistic. Nev1 (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just regarding this section, is it not that this is the date the English capture it? Just to thicken it, the ODNB says that Thomas Beaufort duke of Exeter [s.v.] "proceeded to reduce the strongholds to the west and north up to Dieppe and afterwards to invest Château Gaillard to the south, which surrendered to him on 23 September [1419]". Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, as December 1419 was so close to 1420 I assumed the author of the encyclopedia entry where I found the info had made a slight mistake and that December 1419 referred to the French capture of the castle. The ODNB and the Cambridge Illustrated Atlas could both be correct, but this would make it a more significant error on the part of Kibler, unless he leaves out some details, which is quite possible. That pretty much underlines your earlier point; I have a feeling a French source might help here. Or it might not, but I can't be sure because of accessibility. I am wondering whether to withdraw this nomination; there's very little that can be confidently elaborated with regard to activity in the Hundred Years' War from the English-language sources. Nev1 (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Having access to quality sources means that you can verify for yourself claims made by secondary writers. The Cambridge History of Warfare isn't as far as these things go that reliable. Two authors covering a huge swathe of history like that ain't gonna compare with the specific academic monograph covering the Winter campaign of 1419 read alongside the printed versions of the primary sources used. So all you might need for this kind of thing is decent English sources. E.g. check the scholarly works on the 100 Years War and Henry V, look at what they say and check the footnotes to see how we know the castle was captured when. It might turn out that it hangs on an interpretation of a very difficult source or something. But if you don't won't know what is going on. Anyway, I was thinking you'd need the French sources for the architecture, for French local history matters, and so on. I wouldn't have thought you'd need them for English campaigns. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a possibility I'll look into; I checked an Osprey book on the Hundred Years' War (admittedly not the most detailed volume on the subject), but it didn't have Château-Gaillard in the references. As far as the architecture is concerned, I'm confident that Allen Brown is enough. He explains the site in detail as an important study in the development of English castles; his ideas have mostly endured and he is still held in high regard. Liddiard then provides the less military side of the castle (ie: it's a symbol of power) and in his book summarises very well the newer ideas that castles were more than simply fortresses. Nev1 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Once I disregarded the information from the encyclopaedia as useless, it was much easier to find information relating to the Hundred Years' War with the help of Ealdgyth as I stopped chasing the wrong facts. The new info agrees with the Atlas, but not the ODNB entry. There were no footnotes indicating how Château-Gaillard fell in five or six books on the Hundred Years' War (not all referenced in the article). And of course the moral of the story is to never trust what you read in an encyclopaedia ;-) Nev1 (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments Support I've been to the castle and it is still an enormously impressive place, and this is a fine article, but one that I found a bit disappointing in places and I'm eager to see it improved some more so that I can support. --Jackyd101 (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * its getting much closer, good work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are still one or two points I'm going to think about, but I'm happy to support now. Excellent work, well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead needs looking at a bit more - I recommend developing it into two paragraphs with the additional information of: a brief description of the shape and main features of the castle, the exact length of time taken to built it and an explanation of why it was slighted. The natural break seems to be after "unusually short time".
 * Expanded a bit. Nev1 (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "was on Crusade" - name and link the crusade in question.
 * Done. Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Better. I do have something to add, which is that "He went with" is a slightly pedestrian way to describe the progression of two monarchs across Europe - "joined by" or "accompanied by" would both be slightly better options. --Jackyd101 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed and changed. Nev1 (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "The site of Château-Gaillard was identified as a strategic position" - explain why?
 * Changed "strategic" to "naturally defensible". Why it's strategic is explained in the next sentence. Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again better, but why was that town so special - Normandy was full of towns. I seem to recall reading somewhere that it was the river that made it so important, can you expand on this at all?
 * I vaguely remember seeing something similar, so I'll see what I can find. Nev1 (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How's this? Nev1 (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Richard ordered the construction of the castle" - when?
 * Hmm, looks like I got the chronology a bit out of synch there and Richard was ordering the construction of the castle before he owned the manor. I've rejigged the paragraph slightly. Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "base from which he" - use Richard instead of "he"
 * Done. Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "however one of the party, William Longchamp, died along the way" - with what effect?
 * I've removed this. It's wasn't important to the mission, but I thought it was interesting, however not it seems a bit tangential. Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a think about this, and I think it can stay in with some slight rephrasing - the despatch of the elderly Lord Chancellor to Rome on this mission does after all emphasise its importance to Richard. How about "One of the party, Richard's Lord Chancellor William Longchamp, died during the journey."?--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been re-added, and it should now be clear that his death didn't stop the delegation from trying to carry out their mission. Nev1 (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "(Grand Andely already existed)" - this place should have been mentioned earlier, back when the site was first discussed.
 * Done. Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "In English "Château-Gaillard" means "castle saucy"" - why was it so named?
 * It's not clear; there's a little speculation that it might be because of political intrigue of because the castle was ostentatious, but nothing worth including. The problem is that it's an interesting tidbit, but can't really be expanded on. Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "£15,000 to £20,000" - are there any estimates on what this is in modern terms?
 * Nope, unfortunately the source doesn't give modern equivalents and template:inflation doesn't stretch back to the 12th century. Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries then.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "in retaliation for the massacre of Welsh mercenaries by the French" - what massacre? either make it "a massacre" or specific the nature of the event.
 * Changed. Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Philip ordered a group of his men to look for a weak point in the castle." - did they find one? The text is not clear on this point (after all, a tower might be regarded as a strong point, not a weak one).
 * Oh dear, a couple of sentences were in the wrong place there; the link should now be clear. Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "both in the Hundred Year's War." - this was 150 years later, so its a bit like comparing the Crimean War with Iraq. Give it a bit more context by stating the time difference or find another example closer to the event.
 * Those are the two most famous examples of civilians being allowed to starve to death outside a town's defences and the ones used in the source, so I've mentioned the gap in time. Saying it's like comparing the Crimean War with the Gulf War (either one) isn't the best example because of the huge advances in technology which weren't evident between 1194 and the Hundred Years' War (both were fought with swords and arrows and the most significant advancement was the advent of gunpowder and cannons were unpredictable and expensive at the time of the 100 Years' War), but point taken. Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If that is what the sources use then fair enough, and it has been improved (although there were still surprising leaps in military technology during the medieval period).--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Château-Gaillard was for a year" - was what?
 * Oops, besieged. Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Was this castle unaffected by the Hundred Years War between 1330 and 1419? It seems likely. If you have access to a library then I recommend the works of Jonathan Sumption, who has written three truly brilliant volumes of a history of the war up to 1399.
 * Early on in the Hundred Years' War, fighting was mostly in the west of France and around Calais, which the English secured under Edward III; under his son Richard II the English suffered losses and it wasn't until Henry V that Normandy was retaken. That's when Château-Gaillard came into the fighting, and although it held out a while it wasn't a whole lot of help as the rest of Normandy capitulated fairly easily. Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll let this go for now, (although in fact there was extensive fighting in Normandy, Britanny, Poitou and Aquitaine during the first forty years of the war) but in a couple of weeks I'll be able to check my copies of Sumption and if they have anything to add I'll incorporate it into the article (if that is OK with you?).--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, any help is welcome. Nev1 (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Joan of Arc was captured on 30 May 1430 and a month later Château-Gaillard was recaptured by the English; by then the war was already turning in their favour." - it is not clear from the text what this event has to do with the castle.
 * The intent was to add some context, but it's difficult linking it back into the fall of Château-Gaillard; is this better? I could just remove it. Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Its OK, it just needed rewording, and still does a bit "They were revived" - who? --Jackyd101 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I avoided mentioning the English twice in one sentence, but that was ambiguous and this should work fine. Nev1 (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "ordered the demolition of Château-Gaillard in 1599." - why?
 * Explained. Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reworded it slightly for you.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "searching of an entrance" - do you mean "for"?
 * Eek, yes. Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "completely rebuilt by Philip" - repetition of Philip
 * Changed. Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the article would improve with some restructuring. Many of the questions I had during the first half were actually answered in the second. If the construction section was made a second level heading, and the Innovations and layout moved beneath it, then a reader would be able to understand the shape of the castle, which would improve understanding of the history that follows.
 * The whole section could be moved earlier, although that would break up the historical narrative. Are there specific details that you think need to be mentioned earlier or is it the whole thing? The intent with the current layout is that casual readers will be interested in the history (Richard the Lionheart, the rain of blood, the siege, etc) but the layout will be less interesting. I thought that the history section could stand independently of the layout and innovations section, but if not moving the whole section earlier is an interesting option and sounds less laborious than moving individual sentences. Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I take your point, and will think on it some more. As something of a military historian, I would naturally find it easier to understand the history if I know the technical specifications, but that is not the onyl viewpoint. I may have some additional suggestions here in the near future, but no action is required at the moment.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Oman 1991" - Oman certainly didn't write that in 1991 as he was long dead - give the actual date of publication, not the date that your copy was reprinted.
 * Done Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, but the blockquote still has 1991.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Nev1 (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.