Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jill Valentine/archive4


 * 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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2018.

Jill Valentine

 * Nominator(s): Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the character from the Resident Evil franchise. After an exhaustive [5-month] campaign of contacting everyone who contributed to every single FAC and peer review, I'm renominating this article for Featured Article inclusion. This is a somewhat contentious topic, and I'm aware that fictional character articles have a tenuous chance of being promoted to FA, for one reason or another, so I've tried my best to approach this entire project with the aim of achieving as much consensus from as many contributors as possible. A verbatim transcript of my interactions with all of those 21 previous editors is available on this FAC's talk page. I believe I've addressed all of their concerns, even if the majority of them said they wouldn't be available for comment at this FAC. I believe this article now meets the FA criteria. Pinging the only users who expressed even the slightest bit of interest in commenting here:. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment from ProtoDrake
 * Having looked through the article, I think it more than deserves to become an FA. If the others share my opinion, or share it after any edits they suggest have been attended to, then you should have little trouble. I Support a promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment by Tintor2
 * I don't consider myself an expert in these article (well, there are so little FA characters) but I wonder if the first paragraph could introduce Jill rather than wait for the second paragraph to mention her. Appearances could have a subsection simply titled "In the Resident Evil games" to make it more distinct since there is another one titled "Other appearances". Other than that, I give it my support.Tintor2 (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you for your comments. ;) I've re-arranged the lead and added the requested sub-section heading in 'Appearances'. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

 * I am not sure that “developer” and “publisher” needs to be linked in the lead’s first paragraph. Same with the link for "heroine".
 * Replaced both of the former with generic term "company"; removed link to "heroine".


 * For this part (Valentine is an American counterterrorism officer who regularly works with her partner,), I do not believe that “regularly” is needed here.
 * Removed.


 * For this sentence (Capcom producer Hiroyuki Kobayashi said they made Valentine more "kawaii" for the remake, although she remained a tough and muscular character.), I do not believe the “for the remake” part is necessary as it is clear from the context provided in the previous sentence. And maybe rework the last part slightly to make contrast clear and for more concise language, with something like (Capcom producer Hiroyuki Kobayashi said they made Valentine more "kawaii" while keeping her a tough and muscular character.)? Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've rephrased that whole sentence.


 * This sentence (Voth's likeness was again used in the 2007 title Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, as well as 2009's Resident Evil 5.) is rather wordy and I think you can make it more concise with this revision (Voth’s likeness was reused for Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles (2007) and Resident Evil 5 (2009).).
 * Done.


 * I have a question about this part (The director of the latter game said its designers tried to illustrate how both Valentine and Redfield had changed with time). Is it really important to know that the director said this? Could it just cut to something like “The latter game’s designers tried to…”? I am also not certain about the word choice “tried” as it implies to me an unsuccessful attempt. Maybe something like “wanted to” would be better?
 * Rephrased.


 * For this sentence (In the game, Valentine was redesigned to reflect the fact that she was used as a test subject in biological research experiments.), specify which installment you mean by “the game”.
 * Done.


 * For this part (The style of this costume was based primarily on military clothing and sportswear.), I do not think you need the word “primarily”.
 * Removed.


 * You use the phrase “alternative costume” three times in a single paragraph. I think you can cut down on this by revising this sentence (The miniskirt appears as an alternate costume in Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D (2011).) to something like (The miniskirt is reused for Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D (2011).) or something similar.
 * Thanks for pointing this out. It's a repetition I'd never have noticed myself. I've rephrased the entire paragraph.


 * For this part (for the original game were credited by their first names only), I would put “only” between “their” and “first” instead.
 * Rephrased.


 * This sentence (In Revelations, she was voiced by Michelle Ruff, who provided her voice in the non-canon game Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City.) seems rather repetitive, particularly with “was voiced” and “provided her voice”, and I was wondering it should have some variation. Maybe just say “who returned for the non-canon game” instead?
 * Thanks again. The way this article was left following the last peer review, I have to admit that I was struggling to find synonyms/alternate phrasings for some of these basic points. I've rephrased to your wording.


 * I think that this sentence (The character appeared in several entries of the Resident Evil film series, where she was portrayed by British actress Sienna Guillory.) should be in the present tense.
 * Done.


 * This sentence (Until its destruction at the end of Resident Evil 3: Nemesis, every game in the series took place in the fictional American metropolitan area Raccoon City.) needs to be reworded. The initial, dependent clause (specifically "its destruction) is connected to the noun at the beginning of the: next part (every game) so it literally reads that every game is destroyed at the end of Resident Evil 3: Nemesis.
 * Rephrased.


 * Link Wesker on the first mention
 * Darn. Things not being linked until successive mentions is one of my pet peeves. And this was something I saw happening on the article following its last peer review. So I hoped I'd be able to get all high-and-mighty about it, if needs be... but it turns out I've done it myself. C'est la vie. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk)


 * I do not think that the Mediterranean Sea needs a link.
 * Removed.


 * For this part (were used as the basis for the creation of the Uroboros Virus), I think you can just say "the basis for..." and remove "the creation of" part.
 * Done.


 * Specify which game you mean for this part (During the game, Redfield discovers that Valentine is alive.).
 * Done.


 * For this part (Despite this, Valentine has appeared on several lists which rank characters on their sex appeal.), I am not quite sure if "this" is contextualized. Maybe something like "Despite Mikami's intentions," would make it absolutely clear?
 * Done.


 * How does Voth's cosplay and appearances at cons fit in a section about merchandise? I am a little confused there.
 * It seemed like a notable event, but I couldn't figure out any other way of having it included on the article. Removed.


 * For this part (a quip delivered in awkward voiceover by Valentine's partner), is the partner Chris Redfield? If so, I would just say his name to avoid confusion. Apologies for this, as I have not seen this scene (or played any of the games surprisingly enough lol).
 * It was actually Barry Burton who delivered the line. Rephrased.

I think you have done a good job with this article. It is nice to see another fictional character up for an FA. My review only covers the prose, and does not touch on the sourcing/images. I hope that my comments are helpful; I admit that I am not the best reviewer, but I felt compelled to help with this considering my involvement in the past FAC and peer review. Good luck with this, and I hope this gets plenty of discussions. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review, I would've pinged you, but I wasn't sure if you had retired yourself from Wikipedia or not, so thought it best to err on the side of caution. I think I've done everything you mentioned above. Let me know if there's anything else you can do. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done


 * Source for birthplace?


 * FN4: source says issue 101 not number 101
 * This seems to be a problem with the cite journal template, and not any specific usage found on the article (I've used issue). I tried fixing this by using the cite magazine template, which didn't work. I'm stumped. Any suggestions? Homeostasis07 (talk)


 * FN5: is the interviewer credited?
 * Afraid not. Header for the interviewer simply says "by Edge Staff", nothing specific. I can add "Edge Staff", if it'd help. Homeostasis07 (talk)


 * Don't use publisher for work titles
 * Done, except with ref #66: 'Cite comic' shoots an error when I replace publisher with work. Homeostasis07 (talk)


 * FN11: date doesn't match source. Same with FN16, FN60 part 2, check for others
 * I'm sure it was the archive bot which did this, but I can't find a diff to confirm (don't remember if it did it on my sandbox or on article main space). But I remember seeing it and thinking "Well, it's a bot, so it must be right". Evidently not. Fixed the ones you mentioned. Checked at least 10 others, couldn't find any further problems. Will check every online source over the next day or two, just to be certain. Homeostasis07 (talk)


 * Be consistent in whether publishers are included for periodicals
 * FN23: author name doesn't match source. Same with FN48, 72 part 1, check for others
 * Don't italicize developers, publishers, or associations
 * FN47: should cite original source. Same with FN68
 * FN57 needs a time code
 * FN66: see MOS:NOTUSA, but other comic refs don't include location at all
 * FN66 part 2 is incomplete
 * FN67 part 1: don't see author credit at cited source
 * FN71 is dead. Same with FN 81
 * What makes FN84 a high-quality reliable source? Morbid Creations?
 * FN84 was Joystick Division. Removed.


 * FN85 is a journal article and should be cited as such
 * FN104: title doesn't match source. Same with FN105, check for others
 * Nicholson: source link gives an additional author
 * Chapter titles shouldn't be italicized, and be consistent in how you approach pagination
 * Geyser title should use title case. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks . I've fixed everything you mentioned above, aside from the few points I responded to. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to inform you that I'd checked every reference soon after this last comment, and couldn't find any other dating/author issues. This was one of the minor problems with the article's sourcing after the last "peer review". For the record, there were also other, much more serious issues with referencing, including the access date being removed from [almost] every citation (when it's a required parameter), unrelated references grouped together and used to cite information not found in any of those references, duplicate citations (i.e., the exact same reference appearing multiple times, as opposed to using ), as well as the exact same reference appearing as both an online source in 'References' and an offline source in 'Cited works'). But the sourcing has been fixed now. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I’ve had some complaints about the prose and POV of some of the article in the past, but it has all been addressed and fixed over the course of the last year. None of my objections apply. I Support. Sergecross73  msg me  03:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment from Sergecross73
 * Thanks a bunch Sergecross. I really appreciate it. Homeostasis07 (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

czar

 * Oppose. The nominating statement is really disingenuous. Here are a list of my outstanding concerns readily available on the article's talk page, any of which I would consider significant and insurmountable enough to not pass this for FA, but feel free to override my opposition if you disagree.
 * You weren't pinged to this FAC because it became abundantly clear you stopped engaging. Instead, you repeated many of the same points over and over again without any specificity. Your repetition here of out-of-date criticisms which were already responded to tacitly proves you stopped reading my responses at the talk. If FAC coordinators want more detail on any of the specifics Czar has mentioned, please find it there. Otherwise, I've tried my best to succinctly paraphrase below. Homeostasis07 (talk)
 * ? I made these same points on the talk page, which you saw as either minor or non-issues. That's your prerogative, but don't mistake it for my disengagement. You chose and choose not to address those issues, which leaves other reviewers to determine their validity. czar  23:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The Reception & legacy (R&L) reads as a string of facts/claims rather than a cogent whole—it's not brilliant prose. I rewrote portions of it (example) to show how a more synthetic structure would appear and what low-quality info should be removed for the sake of the reader, but this method was not applied to the rest of the section. Successive sentences feel disjointed, with long-drawn-out sentiments. Why are separate sentences needed for each of the character's superlatives and what does it even mean to say that JV was "the most consistent" as a superlative? Consistency between what and for what? If it's descriptive, why is it in the Reception paragraph? c
 * The diff linked to here is of a minor edit from June, and the entire article has been significantly re-written several times over since then, with the requested method applied throughout. And BTW, the article had additional context to illustrate the use of the word "consistent", but this was removed after FAC3 due to comments you made there about that text being "factoid"-like. You can either have context or not. I've tried both ways already, and you've criticised either way. And in the absence of you providing any actionable alternative, I believe that "nothing can be done in principle to address [this] objection, [so] a coordinator may disregard it." Homeostasis07 (talk)
 * The diff was an example of how the Reception could read as a more synthetic whole. The "action", as mentioned below, is to rewrite the Reception such that successive sentences flow into each other. czar  23:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Which has been done. Homeostasis07 (talk)
 * I see some sentences shuffled in late October but otherwise, as of this edit, no, the sections on sexualization have not been rewritten to synthesize between claims as modeled in the above diff. czar  01:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Look close-lier (BTW, multiple users):, , , , . And you've still to address the primary point of my response (as per usual): that the very essence of what you're complaining about above was actually done at your behest during FAC3, and that your continuing argument about such is in itself a contradiction. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, those edits from October shuffle sentences but do not synthesize between claims in the sexualization paragraphs. No, this wasn't addressed in FAC3, October, or now. I wouldn't have written a paragraph about it here had I felt the issue was adequately addressed. czar  21:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The linked diffs span from August 9 to October 21, and consist of either substantial rewrites of the paragraphs in question, or rewrites of relevant prose from individual sources contained within those paragraphs. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The interplay of the sources on her sexualization is nonsensical. It starts by saying that JV is professionalized and the game series is progressive in its treatment of women, among the least sexualized, and then simply pivots to say that game publications rank JV highly for her sex appeal, "one of the hottest female character designs ever", "an example of female characters who walk in an overtly sexualized manner"—this isn't just differences of reviewer opinion, but are we talking about the same character whose costuming is both tame and sexually suggestive? So my suggestion (see the talk page) was to specify: If her sexualization varied, how did it change between periods? If critics are mixed, show that sources disagree rather than listing polar opposites as facts in separate paragraphs and expecting so little of the reader to not realize that they're being fed a contradiction. c
 * This was discussed ad nauseam at talk. First off, "one of the hottest female character designs ever" is not used in the article in the way he's ascribing; it's a direct quotation from a notable writer, with additional content both preceding and succeeding the quote to provide proper clarity and context. But another substantial point which needs making is that the character is not identical in each release. Her appearance/outfits/personality has changed and developed as the series progressed, with indeterminate reaction to each incarnation. The disparate sources establish this. Of course, it's Czar's prerogative to determine if this is what the disparate sources establish, but, like I said, this has all been discussed previously, and changes have been made to the article with respect of this. Homeostasis07 (talk)
 * This is a matter of forest and trees. There are simultaneous claims that the character was both sexualized and not sexualized with no contextual explanation for the discrepancy. I've read the article multiple times and I cannot discern whether or why there would be conflicting accounts. These are not questions a FA reader should have. czar  23:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But I've just explained how there is contextual explanation for the discrepancy. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I find the contextual explanation in the article inadequate, hence my above comment. czar  21:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But you've started this argument from a skewed point, by [seemingly] intentionally misinterpreting direct quotations. I fail to see how anything here is in contradiction of the FAC criteria. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Atop this is the 2014 Mikami comment, which generates more questions than it answers: If he is opposed to sexualization of women characters, why do we have this significant commentary about JV's sexualization? This again reveals that in this article, which puts such great emphasis on her sexualization, we don't understand why there is such a difference in opinion. Did the character design change after his involvement? Or did he mean well but still design a sexually suggestive character? Or is this comment, made in 2014, not reflective of his original designs? My advice for all of these points was to rewrite from scratch from the source content rather than trying to massage the discordant ideas. c
 * Mikami's original intention cannot be conflated with what subsequent directors have done with the series, nor with the character's general reception. It's an aspect of the development which specifically relates to a major aspect of the reception. I'd like to point out that another user has also fundamentally disagreed with what Czar is asking for with this specific reference, so I don't know what else to do except politely suggest you just drop the stick and walk away. Homeostasis07 (talk)
 * The linked tirade doesn't actually address any of the substance of my questions, so not sure what you want me to glean from reading it again. The point is that I had these questions as a reader from prose that does not follow. czar  23:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hardly a "tirade"—more like a genuine response to what you're asking for from this reference. Homeostasis07 (talk)


 * There's also just basic prose stuff. The first section (Concept & design) almost immediately dives into why JV didn't appear in the sequel but returned in Resident Evil 3. The basics of the character haven't been established for the reader and already we're mired in details irrelevant to a general audience. I suggested to cover the character's conceptualization and design before going into these details, which honestly appear to fit just fine in the "Appearances" section. I disagree that the reason why JV wasn't included in RE2 is a matter of "design" details, especially with some paramount importance to be featured in the first body paragraph of the article... c
 * If it weren't so frowned upon, I'd have taken the liberty of highlighting a key phrase you used above: I disagree. For posterity, my original rationale was: "The overall point of mentioning that Valentine did not appear in Resident Evil 2 is to illustrate the intention of designers "to retain the level of fear found in the original game by introducing similarly inexperienced characters." So this can be seen as relating to design in general." So there's nothing "wrong" per se with that, just your interpretation of what should be done here. And, again, a lot of this is a continuation of long-held misunderstandings of the MOS for VG characters: "Concept and design" versus "Appearances", and what both sections can and actually should consist of. 'Appearances' "should list any games or related media that the character appeared in and briefly discuss their role in the game." So with this in mind, the sentence is referring to why designers opted not to have her appear in a game, and their intention (her role) in doing so, so this would be unsuitable for 'Appearances' (since it's a non-appearance). I've said all this at least four times. And the first two sections of the article are chronological, hence why RE2 is mentioned after RE1.
 * It's not what I would deem FA-quality prose, which should not induce questions of sequential logic while reading. czar  23:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read the MOS for Video Game characters. You've still clearly not done so. Homeostasis07 (talk)
 * I authored large swathes of that MOS. Please do not patronize me. czar  21:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then you should know what information should go in 'Design' and what should go in 'Appearances'. And there's another issue to what you've written here: you seem to be taking this personally, which isn't a good idea. I'm not being personally insulting or demeaning here, I'm just contending that this nomination meets the FAC criteria. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I shouldn't have had to write these out a second time, but it's indicative of this article's journey. Lots of pushback and not a lot of listening. Most of the editors contacted for feedback since the last FAC were simply exhausted. But "I believe I've addressed all of their concerns"? Let's not kid ourselves. I've made my points crystal clear and reasonable on the talk page. Whether they stand out as concerns for you as well, dear FAC reviewer, is your debate, but don't pretend there were no outstanding concerns. A more minor but relevant note is how "only users who expressed even the slightest bit of interest in commenting here" were pinged, but somehow despite participating in the last two FACs and its talk page, I was not. Perhaps it was because it would require reposting the above, unresolved issues. (not watching, please )  czar  17:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nor should I have to repeat myself. For the fourth time, in some occasions. Nothing here is "insurmountable", and I believe I've demonstrated that the majority of Czar's arguments above are either inactionable, or had been explained/addressed prior to nomination. And I'd like to point out that I addressed the concerns of the vast majority of editors who responded—I thought that went without saying. This included the majority of Czar's concerns also. "Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed." I'm pinging you this one time. If you have no genuine desire to see any of these criticisms addressed or – more tellingly – if you believe these criticisms to be inherently inactionable in the first place, then I believe your commentary can be moved to talk, per FAC template guidelines. Additionally, Freikorp/Damian raised a good point below: between the peer review and the extensive discussion on the talk page, you've been actively involved in editing this article for exactly 14 weeks (3 and a half months) over the past year. You're the #13 'Top Editor' on the article, with a 3-year+ editing span. It was your responsibility to declare yourself as a major contributor prior to commenting. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please. All I have to declare is my time spent as a reviewer and copy editor, as you continue to demonstrate how difficult you've made either task. Do not confuse actionable and prescriptive—my comments are the former. (not watching, but  as needed)  czar  23:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not very conductive to a collaborative environment. Will you please strike this? Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * A note to closer that I believe the above discussion is at an impasse. I believe I've made clear points on 1(a) and while the nom considers them rebutted, I disagree. Your call how to weigh my opposition, but I see no good in going in circles above. (not watching, please  as needed)   czar  03:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope the closer genuinely takes the time to read all of this. Your first point was inactionable, the second consisted of a misrepresentation of what's actually found on the article, multiple editors have previously objected to your third point, and your fourth seems to be your personal preference on the MOS. None of which – either individually or combined – illustrates any divergence from 1a. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I've been asked to comment on this FAC, but since I am not too familiar with the series or the character, much of the discussion is over my head. But I have tried to look more closely at the sexualization issue, and as someone who occasionally works in character designs for games in real life, I know how different people have vastly different interpretations of even the same designs (I was asked to design a female pig for a kid's game once, who was supposed to be both cute, powerful, and sexy at the same time, and it of course didn't work out because it went in too many directions at once). Since the discrepancy seems to be between how the character here was originally envisioned, and how it was later portrayed, I would be more precise in giving dates for each statement, and state which version of the game it was in relation to. If a statement is about the character overall, but specifies distinct attributes found in specific games, this could be stated as well. To me, it would make it clearer that the various views are not necessarily in response to the same portrayals. FunkMonk (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, FunkMonk. I've re-arranged certain sentences of the 'Reception and legacy' section to address your concern: most of the criticism the character received was for her Revelations incarnation, with one source criticising her RE3 outfit. I reworded that whole paragraph to make this clearer. It was cool to get perspective from an actual character designer. Cheers. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, I think it reads clearer, let's see if Czar has further input. FunkMonk (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Adityavagarwal

 * Strong Support - I had already supported this article twice before, and this time too it appears to meet the FA standard really well. Good work on this one Homeostasis07, Damien Linnane (aka Freikorp), SlimVirgin, and several others! Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks you for the compliment Adityavagarwal. I've made a slight modification to your comment to clarify Freikorp was my previous username, rather than a separate editor.
 * Just for the record I haven't even looked at the article since I closed peer review 2, nor was I aware it had been renominated until I was pinged at the above comment. That's not a problem; I'm completely happy for other people to take over the work as I publicly stated I was finished with the article, I just thought that should be clarified since I've been mentioned here. It's my understanding I'm not eligible to support or oppose the nomination anyway as I'm a major contributor, as are the other people pinged in the above comment. I'm not watching this FAC; I'd prefer not to join the discussion it but ping me back if you need something clarified about its history. Have a nice day. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, Damien Linnane its refreshing to see your comment! I think due to the name change the ping might not have been sent. I would be really glad to review another of your FACs that you might nominate in the future. Also, I have to say that your efforts on Jill Valentine were extremely commendable (I din't even forget to mention your name even though you were not involved with this review because the one user I linked to this article was you, due to the astronomical amounts of hard work that you did on improving this article at the time)... I might have long gotten tired of such a tough FAC, but you stood till very long! Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comments
Just FYI I'm spending some time this weekend to go through everything that's been said here, in the previous FAC, and on the article talk page. Some of the threads are difficult to follow because replies have been inserted in such a way that the original comments are broken up and unsigned so I can't tell who said what. Pinging in case you're not watching the nom. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just thought I'd let you know that I signed every paragraph I wrote at Jill's talk page. User:SNAAAAKE! wrote one additional message at the very end (which he signed). So everything else was written by Czar. Hope that helps. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * After a lot of contemplation and review, I've decided to archive this. I think Czar's feedback here and on the article Talk page are good exemplars of our operational concept of providing broad valid feedback with examples. I'd have to see a lot more support that indicates explicit examination of the article against 1a and the general themes in the article before I'd be comfortable promoting over the existing opposition. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  17:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.