Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jacobus Anthonie Meessen/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2015.

Jacobus Anthonie Meessen

 * Nominator(s): — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about something different for me. Instead of being about the cinema of the Indies, it's about a little known photographer from the 19th century Dutch East Indies, active in both Padang and Batavia. I think you will find it an interesting read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * At the FAC level, ill templates should be replaced by a link to a stub.
 * That wasn't an issue with Departures nor many of Curly Turkey's articles, nor have I ever read a policy/MOS page regarding that. That being said, there's only one, and it's an inhabited place, so a stub is on its way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm, I'm disappointed I didn't catch it in Departures when I reviewed it. I'll go talk with Curly, if he's using it ... I've rarely seen it at FAC. The two issues are Humpty-Dumptyism (no one uses (nl) to mean "you'll find a Dutch version of this article over here" in print, that I'm aware), and the general idea at FAC that articles should be approaching their finished state ... that is, if we've got something in article space intended to serve as a red flag that there's work to be done, then the work should be done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Moot in this case, as we now have a stub. I must say though that I disagree with the statement "if we've got something in article space intended to serve as a red flag that there's work to be done, then the work should be done"; the same could be said of red links, and a lack of red links is not a FA criteria on the English Wikipedia (now, the Indonesian Wikipedia...). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with a reasonable number of red links at FAC. The red flag (for me, because it sticks out like a sore thumb) is the (nl). - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree quite strongly. I've turned quite of few of those bracketed links into articles—I translated at least three that I saw at Charlie Hebdo shooting (Coco (cartoonist), Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1011, and Mustapha Ourrad) that I wouldn't have even thought of writing if the interwiki link weren't there.  Crisco work in this area probably outstrips mine severalfold.  Wikipedia's a perpetual work-in-progress, and we should be encouraging people to get involved by providing plausible redlinks wherever we can.  s are enriched redlinks in that they provide at least some info to people who can either read those other languages or make good use of Google Translate, and give editors something to work with that a plain redlink does not. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All reasonable points. What about the two points I made? - Dank (push to talk) 23:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The first point should be dealt with at the template talk page—I don't know what a better solution might be that doesn't overly clutter the page. The other has no bearing on an FAC: we don't evaluate an article on the quality of its sub- or linked articles, and removing a legitimate redlink doesn't improve the yet-uncreated article—it hides the "problem" rather than improving it, and discourages editors from creating it.  Since ukiyo-e's promotion I've been going slowly through the redlinks and s.  There are now only a handful left, and some (Kanae Yamamoto) have become quite substantial.  Without that  I likely wouldn't have created it at all. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And in Departures we ended up filling in five or six of the redlinks, with a little help from the Japanese articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Was it only five or six? It seemed like you spent about as much time squishing redlinks as writing the article! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, some were not directly related to Departures; Kodomo no Kodomo was only made because Akira Sasō was made. Dr. B. did the Shinmon Aoki article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Which only reinforces the point, really: redlinks lead to content creation. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "He worked mostly in the capital of Batavia (now Jakarta), Java, and Padang, Sumatra, with additional work in Bangka, Belitung, Borneo, and Nias.": I changed "lived" to "worked", on the theory that for the lead paragraph, readers will be more interested in where he made photographs than where he lived ... but if he didn't do photography in all these places, then this will be wrong. Also: pardon my ignorance, but I've never heard that Dutch East Indies was meant to include Sumutra ... was it? I'm confused why you say in the lead that all his images came from the Dutch East Indies, and then say later in the paragraph that one of the main places he lived was Sumatra.
 * The Indies included Sumatra, and (after Java) it was their main focus for development ... and Padang was a major culture and trade city. Dutch_East_Indies has some administrative divisions (cited), and this map shows Sumatra as part of the Indies. Our own Milhist articles (I'm citing these as familiar territory) such as Battle of Palembang and Dutch East Indies campaign also show this. I suspect you're thinking of the returning Dutch government between 1945-1949, which was focused on Java and unable to reassert a meaningful presence in Sumatra. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a few edits that are in line with the meme of "classic style" ... there isn't a quick and simple description of that style or why anyone would prefer it, but I'll be happy to discuss if you like.
 * They all look good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. FAC is quite fortunate to have your Indonesian articles; I wish we had more articles at FAC relevant to Asia and Africa. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dank! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Changes look good, as long as we've got a stub. Always a pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nikki. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Well done. Just a few quibbles:
 * Lede
 * "Born to a carpenter in Utrecht, Meessen worked in that profession " Isn't it a trade more than a profession? Picky and classist, probably.
 * I was actually thinking that yesterday. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bio
 * "In 1858 he first went " Hermanus was the last male mentioned.
 * "the younger Meessen" now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "where he registered himself as a special inspector for water management" registered? Wasn't he employed?  This sounds like a government sort of thing.
 * How's "Served"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey

 * Just some haisplitting to grate on Crisco's nerves—feel free to disagree with anything:
 * IPA for the name might be nice
 * but also photographed Bangka, Belitung, Borneo, and Nias: I don't there's a contrast worthy of a "but" here.
 * How about "And"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Swell. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * published by De Bussy in 1875: Is "De Bussy" worth a redlink? If not, is it worth mentioning in the lead?
 * They lasted for at least 50 years, so probably worth one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * born in Utrecht, the Netherlands: Google tells me this phrasing is perfectly common, but I couldn't bring myself to say "Utrecht, the Netherlands" out loud the way I'd say "Deseronto, Ontario". I might phrase it "Utrecht in the Netherlands".
 * But then we'd be repeating "In". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would still read more naturally, but it's up to you. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * established his own photo studio: "his own" redundant—if he established it, then it was his own, nicht wahr?
 * Trimmed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * and the commercial firm of Woodbury and Page (operated by Walter B. Woodbury and James Page): I assume they sold dirigibles?
 * Pardon? The beginning of the sentence was "contemporary photographers", so I don't think we need to specify again that they were a photography firm. — Crisco 1492 (talk)
 * Oh, Crisco ... Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * *facepalm* — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 *  (though it is not known what model(s) he used): might not this go better in an endnote?
 * Since we're talking about his equipment, I think it's worth having here, especially since it's a bit more immediately pertinent than (say) what the school he designed is being used as now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1875 Exposition Géographique: worth a redlink?
 * I see mentions, but nothing in detail. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, however, he does not appear: I don't think the "Ultimately, however," adds anything important
 * Simply saying "he does not appear" strikes me as not connecting the two: his continued marketing and the lack of a return. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this Hidde Petrus Nicolaas Halbertsma? Right period, but I can't place him around Gorredijk.: would it be worth asking at WikiProject Netherlands?
 * I think I asked someone before, but I'll check again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Registry says "H.P.N. Halbertsma", so that's an affirmative. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * None of this would have prevented me from giving the article my support, I just don't like to give it too easily. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Curly! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Curly! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Wolbo

 * This is my first FAC review, sorry you had to be the victim.
 * Date of death: based on sources (see also Leeuwarder courant, 11–01–1886) should this not be 14 November 1885 instead of 14 October 1885?
 * You're right... fixed. (Thanks for the link to the mention of his death, too — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular reason for mentioning the province of Utrecht in the infobox instead of just the city?
 * I generally go City, Province, Country in my infoboxes (such as Sudirman). Maybe not 100% necessary for Utrecht, but better to be consistent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your reply puzzles me. You mention that you generally go with City, Province, Country in infoboxes but the article you provide as an example, Sudirman (another excellent article!), shows City, Country (Poerbolinggo, Dutch East Indies) instead of City, Province, Country (Poerbolinggo, Central Java, Dutch East Indies). I don't know what the guidelines on this are, if any exist, but thought we generally go with the custom of the country, i.e. City, State, Country for the US. In the Netherlands it is not customary to include the province in a location (or address), see for instance Mark Rutte or Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands (also born in Utrecht).--Wolbo (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nixed the province. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "On 11 December 1862 he wed Johanna Alida (Jansje) Steenbeek": is it worth mentioning that they married in Utrecht?
 * Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, an announcement of their wedding (1).--Wolbo (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "where he served as a special inspector for water management" As Wehwalt mentioned this is indeed 'a government sort of thing.' 'Waterstaat' is a government institution and the forerunner of the current Rijkswaterstaat. Adding this wikilink, either in the sentence or as a note, would be useful.
 * Reworked (Now reads "where he served as a special inspector for the Bureau voor den Waterstaat")
 * The couple had several children according to the Delpher newspaper archive (see e.g. 1 and 2). Should this be mentioned?
 * I'm impressed that you found that. My own searches through Delpher didn't show this. I'll take a look through the links. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Rather minimal, but definitely worth including. What do you think about "The couple had two daughters, born in 1865 and 1869". I'm hesitant to give the full dates of birth for them, but it's possible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I think mentioning the year of birth is sufficient, I'll leave it up to you on how to phrase it. In addition to the daughters born in 1865 and 1869 they also had a daughter born in 1866 (1), and a stillborn daughter in 1863 (2). The daughter born in 1865 died in October that year (3).--Wolbo (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * K. I'm going through Delpher to see if we're missing any. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Couldn't find any further children. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In the article the term "Indies" is used frequently which confuses me. My understanding from reading the article is that Meessen lived in and traveled within the Dutch East Indies. To my mind "Indies" is a much broader area than the Dutch East Indies. The etymology section of the Dutch East Indies article mentions several English terms for this area (Indië, the Dutch East Indies, the Netherlands Indies, and colonial Indonesia) but "Indies" is not one of them.
 * The stand-alone "Indies" is used after the first mention of the name "East Indies", which is consistent with previous FAs as well as several academic books (ex: The Defining Years of the Dutch East Indies, 1942-1949, The Hadrami Awakening: Community and Identity in the Netherlands East Indies). If he'd been to the West Indies as well, I'd definitely use "East Indies" at the minimum, but no other Indies are mentioned in the article to be a source of confusion.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair answer but I still feel our readers may be confused and believe that Meessen also traveled to other parts of the Indies, outside the Dutch East Indies, when this in fact is not the case. Seems an unnecessary ambiguity. Having said that we are supposed to follow sources and you have convincingly shown that 'Indies' is used as a synonym for the 'Dutch East Indies' in academic books. In fact even the source cited in the etymology section of the Dutch East Indies, Dutch Culture Overseas: Colonial Practice in the Netherlands Indies, 1900-1942 (1996), does, contrary to what I stated above, mention 'Indies' as a synonym for the Dutch East Indies.--Wolbo (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This hasn't been a problem in previous FAs (including TFAs, which is the only time most of these articles get more than 10 or 15 views a day). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * " Minang Highlands": is this the same as Minangkabau Highlands?
 * Yes, linked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "At 5 a.m. the following morning I awoke to find some 60 warriors waiting for me on the beach.": the original Dutch text makes no mention of any awakening. A better translation would be "At 5 a.m. sharp (or "At exactly 5 a.m.") the following morning I found some 60 warriors waiting for me on the beach.". Also note that "Upon arrival I took a few shots" refers to gunshots, not camera shots.
 * Yes, you're right. Both refined. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "At the 1875 Exposition Géographique in Paris, he exhibited 250 of his images – consisting of 175 landscapes and 75 portraits": would a citation of the exposition catalogue (see 1) be useful?
 * I'll take a look. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd seen this one previously, and decided against using it because the information was already cited in another source. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note f ""Een noodzakelijk kwaad voor den militair, bewaren zij in en buiten de kaserne de beste tucht, terwijl op expeditiën of reizen over zee." is an incomplete sentence. It should be ""Een noodzakelijk kwaad voor den militair, bewaren zij in en buiten de kaserne de beste tucht, terwijl op expeditiën of reizen over zee deze vrouwen onschatbare diensten bewijzen.".
 * Added an ellipses, unless you think "these women provide invaluable services" (yes, "bewijzen" I know is closer to "prove", but "prove an invaluable service" doesn't strike me as idiomatic English when the subject is a person) is really needed given the context of the sentence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The English translation in itself is fine but the Dutch note is not complete. If you mention in the English translation the fragment "and prove invaluable" than the Dutch note should include the fragment "onschatbare diensten bewijzen", otherwise there is a mismatch.--Wolbo (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, guess I was distracted when reading the comment (we've got a digitization project we're launching on Monday, so most of my day was spent handling that). Fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * --Wolbo (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wolbo, I believe I've addressed all of your comments. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * An additional point. In the main source for the article (Boom & Wachlin 2004.) it is mentioned in the introductory section that "Pas sinds kort is het oeuvre van Jacobus Anthonie Meessen bij onderzoekers en verzamelaars bekend. Het werk van deze fotograaf is tijdens zijn leven nauwelijks tot zijn recht gekomen en heeft daarna nog decennia onopgemerkt in depots gelegen." which roughly translates to "Only recently  has the work of Jacobus Anthonie Meessen become known with researchers and collectors. The work of this photographer was not really done justice during his life and has remained undiscovered in depots for decades." This is corroborated in the list of exhibitions in the same source which jumps from 1883 to 1998. This seems worth mentioning in the article, probably in the 'legacy' section.--Wolbo (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree about the "little studied"; have added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it known why Meessen went to the Dutch East Indies in 1864? This book (1) mentions he worked there for Waterstaat, which seems plausible. Would be nice to get a confirmation from a reliable source. The book itself is also interesting, apparently a facsimile of a work by Meessen. Could this be the same book as published in 1875, but with a different title, or is it a separate book? Could not find any more info on it.--Wolbo (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It says that it's from 150 year old manuscript, filled with his findings, but doesn't mention any photographs being included... that suggests to me it's a different book altogether. This is very interesting, though since I can't get immediate access to it (September is probably the earliest I'd be able to get a copy), I'm not sure the article meets the FA criteria of comprehensiveness now. A source by the subject is enough for non-controversial things like where he worked, and this would hopefully have more biographical information. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Previous reviewers (Wehwalt, Dank, Curly Turkey) what do you think of withdrawing this until we can get the book? I missed that a new book was published in January (admittedly by the subject, but still). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Either way; I'd be happy to review again in September, if you'd rather pull it now. I don't usually weigh in on comprehensiveness. - Dank (push to talk) 01:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've ordered the book, but no guarantees on how soon I'll get it (on a side note: only $7 for shipping to Indonesia from the Netherlands? Wow!). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe they have an old copy lying around in Batavia..... --Wolbo (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We'll see. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Crisco, is this a formal request to withdraw? I mean the nom is barely two weeks old so that's not an issue in itself, it's more that further reviews might be academic if this additional source introduces much new material to the article... Anyway, let me know. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's not formal yet. I personally think that this is still fine (When I did Departures, the commentary track didn't add much, and we don't have any guarantees either way yet here), but others may disagree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the 'Style and photography' section could include some info on the print technique Meessen used for his photographs. This site mentiones he used albumen print.--Wolbo (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The RKD site specifically mentions 'topographical views' as one of Meessen's subjects as do Boom & Wachlin (2004) but it is not mentioned in the article. Perhaps you can include that somewhere.--Wolbo (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd have thought landscape photography covered that. Meessen predated the New Topographics movement by over a century, and I don't see many English sources using the term "topographic photography" in another context. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My final comment; This book review of Batavia In Nineteenth Century Photographs by Scott Merrillees mentions (p. 929) that both Woodbury and Page and the Meessen studio are known to have produced 'ethnographic types or portraits'. 'Ethnographic' seems an apt description for Meessen's photography of and commentary on indigenous people and could be a useful term to include with a wikilink to ethnography.--Wolbo (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Added. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Disregarding the issue of the discovery of Meessen's 1858–1862 travel book on this FAC, I leave that up to more experienced FAC reviewers, I can give the article my full support. All my points have been properly addressed. The article is well-written and structured, comprehensive (per available sources) and sufficiently sourced. Well done. --Wolbo (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Wolbo! The article looks considerably better — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from SchroCat
Excellent article and very enjoyable to read. A couple of minor points to mull over:

There are a few dates that are followed by a comma (per US practice), and a few that are not (per UK practice). Probably best to select one and stick with it. Photography Style and legacy References Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What type of English is this in? If it's BrEng, then "From May through August" should be "From May to August". Not a problem in some of the other variants.
 * Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ...sea journeys.". No need for the double full stop
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Jacobus Anthonie Meesen [sic]": Does the title contain [sic]? If not it should be outside the quote marks. It may also be worth using [sic] too.
 * I'm using the template. The example used in its documentation ("Concencus [sic] can Change!") suggests that sic in the square brackets is still within the quotes in a title. Admittedly it's a bit different in this case, what with the error being in the last word of the title, but I prefer to follow precedent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Schro. Done all, I believe. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Schro, do you think you could do a source review for formatting/reliability (unless the References comment indicates you've already done so)? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , I haven't done yet, but happy to do so. Watch this space! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Source review
 * The formatting etc is all good, as far as I can see. No spot checks undertaken because of the language barrier. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Schro. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.