Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pomona College/archive2

Pomona College

 * Nominator(s): &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a liberal arts college in California, one of the four level-5 VA liberal arts colleges.

I have been working intently on it for the past year or so, hoping to create a new model article for WikiProject Higher education, which has seen a devastating trend: of its 15 FAs on extant institutions in September 2020, all but 4 have now been delisted after failed FARs, and most of the remainder are in poor shape.

I am grateful to have already received substantial feedback on this article in three prior venues: a thorough GAN, the previous FAC, and most recently an extensive peer review and source spot check. It includes some novel elements, like an interactive campus map (the first of its kind for a college, I believe) and 360° interactive panoramas accompanying some photos. I hope you enjoy reading it and look forward to addressing your comments! Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

 * This article includes a large number of images, which is causing some layout problems
 * I've focused on ensuring that there are no layout problems on New Vector, as that's what will be in widespread use shortly. If you have any particular concerns, please let me know. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Skin isn't the only thing impacting layout - also screen size. On my (average-sized laptop) screen there is extensive sandwiching, particularly in the Campus and Student life sections, as well as headings getting shifted right. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're correct that screen size has traditionally been a main determinant of sandwiching—with the old skins, on a big enough screen, any article with any images on the left will have sandwiching. But New Vector limits content to a maximum of 960px. When it is deployed soon as the default mode, it will be the experience for 99% of desktop readers, so that's what I'm designing around. Let me know if it's different for you, but when I read the article with New Vector, the only place where sandwiching concerns might arise is the athletics section.That section presents a tricky scenario, as it would be a significant loss to the article to remove either the table of athletics teams (a pretty standard element) or the sole photo of contemporary athletics, and it is not really possible to retain both without creating a minor sandwich. To alleviate that concern as much as possible, I ensured that both the table and the photo are thinner than average width, so the text is still as wide as it'd be with something like Multiple image. Ultimately, it boils down to whether minor sandwiching or the removal of useful content is the greater loss for readers, and my view is that the content loss would be more significant, making this an appropriate instance to invoke the note at MOS:IMAGES that occasional exceptions may apply. Do you find that rationale satisfactory enough? We can explore what to do if it's a dealbreaker, but I think it'd be a loss. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that there is a free logo, what is the justification for also including a non-free logo?
 * Having both a seal image and a wordmark is built into Infobox university. The "free logo" in this case is just a wordmark that doesn't pass the threshold of originality. It would be insufficient to fulfill the seal's purpose of use as described at the file page, as it is the seal, not the quite generic and undistinctive wordmark, that is the primary visual identifier of the college. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggest elaborating on this in the FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Done here. Let me know if I should change anything further. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Exterior_view_of_Pomona_College,_Claremont,_1907_(CHS-3857).jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:President_Roosevelt_speaks_at_Pomona_College,_1903.jpg, File:Men_protest_opening_of_Frary_Dining_Hall_to_women.jpg
 * For the first one, I'm not aware of the initial publication date, but the current rights holder is USC, and per the description page they've released it into the public domain. For the second, it was published 9 May 1903 as can be seen here. For the third, it was published in the 1957 Metate, Pomona's yearbook, per here and my correspondence with the Pomona archivist (see here). I looked through the copyright renewal logs to confirm that the Metate copyright was not renewed. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For the first, if this is believed to be PD because of a release the tagging should be changed to reflect that. For the second and third, that information should be added to the image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * PD tag for first adjusted. Information added for second and third. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Pomona1.jpg is tagged as lacking a description
 * Description added. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Johnson_spanish_music_1916_4.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I added PD-US-expired. Did I do that right? My understanding is that both the sculpture and the photo need to be properly licensed. For the photo, that's pretty easy, as it's own work by Seauton. For the sculpture, it was created in 1916 and the artist died in 1927. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just quickly following up, please let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to address. Best, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

HF
Will review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 07:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I'm just now getting to this - have had some stuff coming up. The review will probably be in a few chunks due to article length and Thanksgiving

More to come later. Hog Farm Talk 06:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Exact quote of "college of the New England type" is only in the lead, although a paraphrase is found in the body. Shouldn't the exact quote be used in the body as well, if its significant enough for the lead?
 * Done. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "On October 14, 1925, Pomona's 38th anniversary, the Claremont Colleges were incorporated." - specifically state that it's a founding member of the Claremont Colleges? Implied but not directly stated
 * Done. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "He and dean of women Jean Walton also ended the gender segregation of Pomona's residential life," - maybe mention that this was how the college ran things before mentioning that it was ended? It comes a bit out of the blue in the current form
 * Done here. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The 21st century section is a little WP:PROSELINE-y. Not a terrible example, and not a sticking point for me, but could the paragraphs flow together a bit better than all starting with various constructions of "In 20XX ..." or "In the ..."?
 * I attempted a small fix here. The reason the more recent history is like this is that the most recent scholarly history of the college ends in 1969, so most of what came after has to come from newspaper reports of individual events. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * "and are designed to facilitate both indoor and outdoor use" - Maybe I'm overthinking this, but how do you have outdoor use of a building
 * Here's the relevant quote from the source: Throughout all its history, though, a strong emphasis on spaces that facilitate both an indoor and outdoor lifestyle have remained. Almost every single residence hall, for example, is situated by or around courtyards, with calm bubbling fountains, benches and tables for lounging and socializing and cool, inviting trees and lawns. Most dining halls have patios for outdoor eating, and there are many spots with tables outside where students frequently study or hang out. As a brochure guide to Claremont's campuses puts it, "As open spaces the courts are not merely voids between structures; they are compositions of space and landscape elements." &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "They include the Carnegie Building, a neoclassical structure built in 1908 as a library" - specify/link that it was a Carnegie library
 * Done. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * " The college has 821 total employees as of the fall 2020 semester" - through in the full-time educational faculty number, as well? Since the majority are non-educational faculty
 * I mention that in the Academics section a little further down. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Its operating budget for the 2019–2020 academic year was $229 million" - is the 2020-2021 operating budget available, since that academic year has been completed
 * Not yet, at least from here. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Is bond rating encyclopedic?
 * I'm not a finance expert, so someone who is might be able to address that question better. But the reason I added the sentence is because this section ought to give readers a sense of the institution's overall financial situation, and the credit ratings agencies seem to be the best independent source for that information. When I read the Fitch rating commentary, I was struck by the level of detail it went into about the college's financial operation—there seems to have been a lot more that went into it than just "it has a giant endowment so it gets AAA". &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, then. (I'm an auditor who does some work with government entities, and any random road board or high school can get a bond rating.  But this sounds more significant than those minor ones) Hog Farm Talk 05:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

More to come later. Hog Farm Talk 23:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Note g probably needs a source
 * The ref for note g is Enrollment Policies (currently 218), which appears at the end of the sentence in which the note is embedded. The schema I've been using for note references is to include a separate reference for them only if it's different from the reference supporting the sentence. When a note appears at the end of a sentence (as is the case for most of the others), I place it before the body reference if that's the reference supporting it and after the body reference if it has its own reference. This did come up in the prior FAC; is it something you think I ought to change? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "During the 2015–2016 academic year, 175 employers hosted on-site informational events at the Claremont Colleges and 265 unique organizations were represented in 9 career fairs" - somewhat dated, anything newer available? If not, maybe remove as this is old enough that relevance is questionable by now
 * I wasn't able to find anything newer, unfortunately—the office seems to put together a comprehensive annual report only once every several years, and this was the most recent one. I wouldn't imagine that the numbers have changed all that much, though. I included the sentence since I think the paragraph on career development ought to have some quantitative information on the level of recruiting that happens on campus. Does that seem reasonable or should I take it out? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Student life - note sure the tooltip note for 5C is needed - it's already been introduced in the article
 * I've been musing lately about MOS:REPEATLINK and related issues, given research that most readers jump around and read only parts of an article, rather than going top to bottom. I'm not sure it's safe to assume that someone in the student life section has read the academic affiliations section, and an abbr tooltip seems like a low-cost way to inform (or remind) them if needed. I don't feel particularly strongly about it, though. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "The Golden Antlers publishes satirical content" - recommend a better source than the Golden Antlers itself to demonstrate significance
 * Yeah, given the purported 1726 establishment date, I think we'd be wise to steer clear of the Golden Antlers about page even for WP:ABOUTSELF info haha. I've swapped to this feature from Scripps, which has the most detailed info I could find, and I could add this article from The Student Life if you'd like a secondary source. I think it's important to mention the Golden Antlers not only because of its significant presence on campus, but also because, as an online publisher, it has a bigger presence off-campus than most 5C clubs—a reader researching Pomona is far more likely to encounter a Golden Antlers article than they are e.g. something about the orchestra. Having a mention helps contextualize it, which is particularly important for a satire publication. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * " and undocumented or DACA recipient students" - DACA's already been linked, don't think you need the tooltip
 * See above. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "The Pomona Student Union (PSU) facilitates the discussion of political and social issues on campus by hosting discussions, panels, and debates with prominent speakers holding diverse viewpoints" - recommend a better source than PSU's weebly site to support significance of this activity
 * I added a post from the American Association of Colleges and Universities to supplement the WP:ABOUTSELF source. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources:
 * Post-2013 Newsweek is listed as iffy at WP:RSP, is this good enough for FA standards?
 * I swapped it out for Fiske. The Pomona College Magazine article has the most detailed info, but I wanted to supplement it with a secondary source. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What makes the Hidden Pomona podcast a high-quality RS?
 * That's a very reasonable question. I use it in three places, and in each I found it to be the most comprehensive historical account of the event it's supporting. There are a few things I'd note in support of it meeting the WP:RSSM reputable student media standard. First, I think it's fairly self-evident from listening to it and reading about its production that it was thoroughly researched and reported with attention to detail and accuracy. Second, you can look at the people involved. Kevin Tidmarsh was editor-in-chief of The Student Life and went to RSP-greenlit NPR after graduation. Saahil Desai wrote for The American Prospect and The Washington Monthly (both respected policy magazines) prior to Hidden Pomona and also went to NPR after graduation. He's currently an associate editor at The Atlantic (RSP-greenlit, and arguably tied with The New Yorker for the title of most reputable American magazine). Susan McWilliams Barndt, who oversaw the project, is a tenured full professor in Pomona's politics department and the co-editor of the peer-reviewed academic journal American Political Thought. Lastly, in each case where I cite Hidden Pomona there is at least one accompanying reference, so if you're not persuaded on reliability you could view it as serving the help users find additional information on the subject aspect of the WP:WHYCITE guideline rather than the verifiability aspect and defer to the other sources for verifiability. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Trendacosta, Katharine (May 28, 2013). "The Longest Running Gags in Science Fiction Movies and Television". io9. Gawker Media. Retrieved April 7, 2020." RSP does not say positive things about Gawker, recommend replacing
 * I removed it since the material is fully supported by the other references and there's not much in that one not also in the others. For the record, I would say it's reliable, as io9 is an independent publication that was under Gawker Media ( Gawker). Two years after this piece was published, it was acquired by RSP-greenlit Gizmodo, and when it most recently came up at RSN in 2019 most editors seemed to consider it reliable. All that's moot with it no longer in the article, though. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Burt, Brackett, and Bernard are in the bibliography, but not used? Moved to further reading, as they seem to be generally dated and don't represent gaps in the research here?
 * Sumner and Brackett are the two earlier scholarly histories of Pomona, and Bernard is the most recent scholarly history of the consortium. I didn't see a need to use any of them as references, since everything significant enough for the article is covered by Lyon. But I did want to include them in the bibliography due to their potential usefulness for readers, particularly given that they're all freely accessible online. I wouldn't be too keen to break up the bibliography, as it wouldn't be clear to most readers why some stuff is there and other stuff is in a different "further reading" section. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

This one's in pretty good shape. It was interesting to read about Pomona - the college I graduated from not long ago was the polar opposite - a fundamentalist Christian college that banned on-campus dancing. Hog Farm Talk 05:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed on talk and have no concerns, but please ping me to continue review after Hog Farm is satisfied. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * - I think I'm comfortable with supporting. Hog Farm Talk 19:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it; will review thoroughly today. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Very fine work, nitpicks on talk, anticipate supporting. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, all my nits picked, and I took a stab at copyvio checking on talk, as this will be Sdkb’s first FA; I found no problems. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Support from HAL

 * I have already made extensive comments on this article, and I'm very satisfied with the work done by Sdkb. I'm happy to support this nomination. ~ HAL  333  03:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass
Will do soon. I see this has received a thorough spot check at PR, so I will not do so here. Aza24 (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm I'm kind of thinking this already had a source review, per the talk page comments and the PR source review. is this needed, or? There's a lot of sources, so I wanted to check first before going through them. Aza24 (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I’ve done a bit on talk here, and there are also some pieces elsewhere. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are quick! I didn't see your comment before I left my earlier one, I may end up leaving some content comments instead then. Aza24 (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it would be good to do a bit more than time permitted me to do. There is no copyvio/too-close-paraphrasing concern, but you can look over what I did on talk to see if maybe more is needed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The type of source review this article hasn't had yet is a source formatting review, so it might be helpful to focus on that. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay! Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Version reviewed
 * I'm two thirds through the refs, though may need to take another look at the second third. Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Version reviewed for second look Aza24 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Formatting
 * I don't really understand your location rationale in the Bibliography, sometimes its city, sometimes city and state? Are you just listing better known cities without the state? Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, my approach is to include the state only if the city is not internationally recognizable. Claremont, Naperville, Walla Walla, and Anaheim fell short of that threshold, whereas New York, Los Angeles, and Boston met it. If you're looking for a more formal definition of "internationally recognizable", we could use VA level 4 or the AP Style list, but it wouldn't really come into play unless I added another entry to the bibliography. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough Aza24 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think Bernard, Brackket and Sumner are used, should they be in further reading? Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hog Farm asked about this above; ctrl+f for "Sumner and Brackett are" for my reply, and let me know if you'd like me to expand on it further. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand the sentiment, but I don't agree that "it wouldn't be clear to most readers why some stuff is there and other stuff is in a different "further reading" section". In the past I have included historical sources in the further reading for the same reason you're saying, so would think it makes sense here? Though I would not oppose over this, it just seems fundamentally confusing Aza24 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the most likely reason a reader would go to the bibliography section is if they wanted to read about Pomona in more depth than is covered in this article. For that purpose, they won't really care whether or not a source is used directly in the article (I say "directly" because Lyon used the earlier histories by Brackett and Sumner to inform his history). I think part of the confusion may be coming from the fact that "bibliography" has multiple definitions—it can mean either "list of works consulted" (#3 here) or "list of works relating to a topic" (#2), and I'm using it more in the #2 sense. (I wish that there was another less ambiguous word; see also the lack of standardization at MOS:REFERENCES.) With all that said, if you'd still like to see this modified, one thing we could do would be to change the section title to "Bibliography and further reading"—let me know if I should do that. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, how about we keep it as is, but maybe you add invisible comments along the lines of "Though this reference is not cited directly, it is kept in this section in order to preserve a single bibliography section"? Aza24 (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good; done! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it fundamentally misses the point that the bibliographies are meant for the works cited in the article. In the past I've created large further reading sections of historical source
 * Ref 258 needs a publisher/website/work or something
 * Good catch; I'm always amazed at how there's still stuff I manage to miss after looking over the refs so many times haha. Fixed. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ref 291 needs a publisher
 * Another good catch; fixed (Springer Nature). &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Page number for 296?
 * Added (pp. 43–44). &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ref 303 is the only The New York Times ref with a subscription icon, and regardless is should probably be an access limited one anyways
 * That's intentional—ref 303 the only NYT ref in which the article has not been digitized, so a subscription is required to view it on the TimesMachine; the others are all available for anyone. Re "limited", I've never been persuaded that we ought to be using that, as the symbol is confusingly the same as the "registration" one and it makes it seem like the source is less accessible than it likely actually is. I don't feel all that strongly about it, so let me know if you do, but the current formatting is consistent. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't 307 also in the time machine? That was part of my confusion. Aza24 (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * All old NYT articles are available in the TimesMachine, but most of them have been digitized through optical character recognition, so they're also available freely as text. 307 (and a few others) have been digitized, whereas 303 is not and has the note "Full text is unavailable for this digitized archive article. Subscribers may view the full text of this article in its original form through TimesMachine." That's why it's labeled differently. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good otherwise. Aza24 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliability
 * Are the Hidden Pomona (Podcast) sources needed? I'm not sure that the pod cast can be considered "high quality" and the references are seemingly being used in addition to other ones already Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hog Farm also asked about this; ctrl+f for "That's a very". &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well if that's its use, I would suggest putting it into notes for something like "For a comprehensive overview" or "for further information" rather than references. In general, citing an entire podcast without time stamps feels like citing a book without page numbers. Aza24 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am using it as a reference, for the reasons stated above. And even if it was only a "further information" link, I think those fit better in the references section (where they're allowed per the WP:WHYCITE guideline) rather than in the notes section, which in this article is for content rather than sources. Re timestamps, it's not possible to add them because in each instance, the entire episode is about the event it's supporting. I'd view a 20-min. podcast episode as more analogous to a feature article than to a book, as its transcript would be more article-length than book-length. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah I agree with your video-book vs article-podcast comparison. No worries here then. Aza24 (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Verifiability
 * Was ref 66 "pt. 3" meant to be "chpt. 3"?, otherwise, switching between page numbers, chapter numbers and parts seems a bit much, and the latter seems too broad to offer real verifiability anyways Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is part 3; the broadness comes from the fact that the sentence covers World War II through 1969, and that's the last third of the book. I'll go ahead and remove it. The secondary verification there comes from the Los Angeles Times. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Otherwise already approved by Sandy at the talk page and Zetana at PR Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, you seem to have gone through these fairly thoroughly, for which thanks. Do you consider that you have also carried out a spot check on source to text accuracy? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , my apologies I should have been clearer. See my above comment "Otherwise already approved by Sandy at the talk page and Zetana at PR"; you'll see at the talk page and peer review there were already comprehensive spot checks and source to text checks by others. Aza24 (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Aza24, no, no, thanks for squirreling them out, I would probably never have found them. And apologies that I missed the point of what you were communicating. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)