Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pru (album)/archive2


 * 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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2017.

Pru (album)

 * Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone! Following the promotion of "Shine" (Gwen Stefani song), I have decided to nominate another music-related article for FAC. This article is about the eponymous, debut studio album by American singer Pru. It was released on November 7, 2000, through Capitol Records. Music critics described the album as crossing multiple genres, with several commentators connecting the singer with a movement of neo soul performers. Apart from the sound, Pru was also noted for using poetry as an inspiration for writing music. After its release, critics wrote generally positive reviews of the album, praising its composition and Pru's voice. The album peaked at number 176 on the Billboard 200 chart. Two singles were released, "Candles" and "Aaroma (of a Man)".

Just for clarification, I do not believe that a separate article is necessary for Pru, as this album appears to be the only notable (according to Wikipedia standards) aspects of her career. Following the release of the album, she has appeared to drop from public attention. I believe that this fulfills all aspects of the featured article criteria. Hopefully, this nomination will inspire more people to put up more obscure music-related articles through the FAC process. I look forward to everyone’s feedback. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar

 * "It was released on November 7, 2000, through Capitol Records" - is there any need for a comma after 2000? I'm not sure if it's necessary after mdy format but it feels like it's blocking the sentence
 * There is no real reason for the comma's inclusion so I have removed it. I am not sure how it slipped in there tbh so thank you for catching that for me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "It was executive produced by Capital Records executive Roy Lott" - is the repetition meant to be here? Not sure if it makes sense to me
 * True. I have reworded it to avoid the repetition. I switched "executive produced" for "managed" as they mean similar things in this given context. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Two singles were released, "Candles" and "Aaroma (of a Man)". "Candles" peaked at number 68" - you could replace the second "Candles" with "The former", but I'll leave this up to you.
 * Revised. Makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "The record was completed at Studio 57 and Weight Room" - can the location of where it was recorded (city etc) be mentioned here?
 * Added city. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "sent to rhythmic radio stations in the United States during the week of September 4, 2000" - how about the first week of September? Feel free to ignore if you disagree. I thought that saying the week of a day sounds a little confusing, if you know what I mean.
 * Changed as it does sound better. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Despite this change, the song was still released under its original title for vinyl and CD releases" - there was no mention of this album being released on vinyl earlier.
 * The album was not released in vinyl; it was only the single in this instance. Hope that clears it up. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "with a Billboard reviewer writing that the singer was "[p]icking up the lyrical gauntlet" from contemporary neo soul performers" - unlink neo soul here as it's already been linked before
 * Removed link. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Those were all of the things I could pick up during my first read through of this article. Overall it's in excellent shape; compact, well written and enjoyable to read. I'll comb through the article again to see if there's anything I missed but I'm confident I'll be supporting once they're all addressed. JAG UAR   18:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review/comments. I enjoyed working on something that is very obscure (I have never heard of anyone talking about this album or singer before I created and expanded this article). I have addressed your comments, and I am looking forward to your feedback. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing them! I have never heard of Pru before, but it was a very enjoyable read and I'm sure she's a talented singer. I've read through the article again but honestly there's nothing else I can nitpick here, so I'll go ahead and lend my support now. It is compact, well written, and I believe it meets the FA criteria. Well done! JAG  UAR   19:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support! Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Support from Paparazzzi

 * "AllMusic's Ed Hogan noted that the songs combined hip hop music, Latin music, contemporary R&B, rock music, and trip hop..." I don't know if you can reduce the use of "music" here.
 * Makes sense. Reduced. Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Ref. 2's archived link shows a 404 message. Ironically, the original link is not dead, so I would suggest to archive it again.
 * Archived again. Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have already reviewed this article before; these are my only comments. Since they are minor comments, I'm going to support this nomination. Congratulations on this article! Great work as always! Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support. Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Media review

 * The infobox album image has an appropriate fair use rationale and includes alt text.
 * The other image is appropriately licensed and includes alt text.
 * The fair use rationale for the music sample is mostly very good. From a little research I can see the 19.3-second length is well below 10% of the song length of 4:42. But it would probably be a good idea to specify that explicitly within the FUR. Moisejp (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Added. Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Great! Moisejp (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Minor quibble: The sound clip ends quite abruptly. Whenever I create sound clips for Wikipedia I try to use the fadeout feature (I use Audacity, not sure whether the fadeout feature is available on other tools). If it's easy for you to fix, it could be worthwhile. Moisejp (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for I have added the fade out to the sample. Let me know if it works out correctly. Thank you for your review! Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. It still seems quite abrupt to me, however. Maybe try a longer fadeout? Moisejp (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I think that this simply boils down to personal preference (unless there is a Wikipedia policy on this matter). I do not necessarily see the point or benefit in adding a longer fadeout to the sample. Not only do I not really want to go back into Audacity to learn how to make a longer fadeout, the sample will always sound abrupt as it only contains a portion of the song. If I added a longer fade-out, I would also feel like it would not represent the song 100% accurately anymore as a listener may misunderstand the fade-out as part of the song rather than something I added to upload it to Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, fair enough. I agree it's just a minor preferential thing. I'm happy to say the media review passes. Moisejp (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments; I greatly appreciate your feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Cartoon network freak
Everything seems to be fine now. You have my support! Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support. Aoba47 (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Source review
Everything looks good. All urls are archived and references are from reliable sources. Still, I'm not sure about using direct Google Books scans. Isn't this copyright violations? You could simply leave the source to the magazine.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the source review. I have changed the citations to have them to cite the magazine itself, and took out the URLs. Hope that helps as it is important to be considerate and aware of potential copyright violations. Aoba47 (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Good job. I'll make it pass.Tintor2 (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you as always! Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I was wrong about the google books links after all. Feel free to add them if you want them.


 * Thank you for the clarification and for checking the information. It is important to make sure that all of this stuff follows policy and code so I appreciate that you took the time and energy to check everything out. Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Edwininlondon
I'm no music expert, so just commenting on prose. Which I found of high quality. First a meta-comment. I'm inclined to think Pru the singer does deserve her own article. Are there any precedents where it was found the artist was not notable? Anyway, for this article, a few comments:
 * Thank you for your comments below. Someone in the future can definitely try to make an article on Pru, but I am just uncertain on whether or not there would be enough information on her outside the scope of this album. Here are the notability requirements for articles on musicians. I have also created a redirect in the past Pru (entertainer) in case anyone wants to try to do an article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * eponymous -> I'm not sure we need this word in first sentence. I'd prefer plainspeak.
 * Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * the fact that she is American is not mentioned in the body
 * Added. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * After its release, -> unnecessary phrase
 * Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "[m]usic for the [s]oul" -> I'm not a fan of the [], it distracts. Would "Music for the Soul" here really be that bad?
 * Sorry about that, I thought I had already removed the brackets. I think it is okay to present it as "music for the soul" as it does not change the meaning dramatically. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Pru offering a "sexy challenge" -> who is quoted here?
 * Added. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * includes "popping percussion and fluttery flute runs" -> who is quoted here?
 * Added. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * a "brassy two-step" -> who is quoted here?
 * Added. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Pru was frequently compared to neo soul artists, such as Erykah Badu. -> who is actually depicted?
 * Added clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Edwininlondon (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review! I believe I have addressed all of your comments. Let me know if there is anything else that I can improve, and I hope you are having a great weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AJona1992

 * Too many instances with the word "record" in the lead, especially in the beginning paragraph.
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Is it "Aaroma" or "Aaroma (of a Man)", need to specify.
 * There is already a sentence in the "Singles" subsection (i.e. ""Aaroma" was released as the album's second single under the new title "Aaroma (of a Man)"). "Aaroma" was released a single under the name "Aaroma (of a Man)", but it was put on the album under the original title. Please let me know if there is a better way to contextualize it. I have specified it in the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure why "Salsa" is in caps and other genres are not, it should be in lower caps. – jona  ✉ 19:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure exactly what you are referencing with this comment. The only instance of "Salsa" that I can see in the article is in the context of "Salsa Interlude" so it is capitalized because it is a part of a song title. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed your comments. Please let me know if there is anything that needs further revision. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp
Hi Aoba. These are comments on the first half:
 * Lead: "The former peaked at number 68 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs Billboard chart." "The former" feels awkward to me here. May I suggest just simply "Candles"?
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't suppose you have any sources that explain why the album liner notes give her so few songwriting credits when it sounds like the lyrics were heavily centered on her poetry. If you don't, no worries. It just struck me as being a little surprising.
 * I unfortunately do not have a source to explain this. It is interesting as the information does seem somewhat contradictory. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Release and reception: The third sentence of the second paragraph uses a small mid-sentence t for "the Family Stand" but everywhere else in the article seems to use large Ts.
 * Changed it to the large T. Thank you for pointing this out, and I am looking forward to the rest of your review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Lead: "Two singles were released, "Candles" and "Aaroma", to positive reviews from music commentators. "Aaroma" was retitled to "Aaroma (of a Man)" for its single release." May I suggest this may be too much detail for the lead. How about simply "Two singles were released, "Candles" and "Aaroma (of a Man)", to positive reviews from music commentators."
 * Revised. I had put in the clarification on the "Aaroma" title as there was some confusion on the difference between "Aaroma"/"Aaroma (of a Man)". I agree with your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Background and recording: "Even though Lott noted her potential as an artist, he said that "[h]er lyrics were the thing that stood out the most for me, and it really was the challenge"." This is confusing to me. Why "even though"? It suggests that what comes before and after are contradictory. Also, I can guess what he may mean by "it really was the challenge" but I'm not sure. Does the source give any more context for that? Or if not, it could be a thought to remove that last bit.
 * Revised to hopefully read better. I have remove the last bit as there is not any further context provided from the source (i.e. the source just had the quote from Lott without any real contextualization of it). Aoba47 (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "She interpreted her music as a form of poetry". I'm not sure whether "interpreted" is the best word here. Maybe something like "she considered her music to be a form of poetry"? Moisejp (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that "considered" is a better word; I think I was trying to go for something with my original phrasing that just does not work out. Thank you for pointing it out as I meant to return to this point and had forgotten about it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Composition and sound: "Hogan, however, interpreted the song as a "juxtaposition of the original message from 'The Track of My Tears'"." I see this is a quote directly from Hogan, but I'm not convinced Hogan has correctly used the word "juxtaposition", which is "an act or instance of placing close together or side by side, especially for comparison or contrast". Where "a" and "b" are single things, I would expect "a" is juxtaposed with "b", or "a" and "b" are juxtaposed, but not "a" is juxtaposition of "b". The juxtaposition would be a+b, not just a. So I'm saying I'm not sure what Hogan means here. But if you or other editors disagree with me and think Hogan's usage of the word is valid and meaningful, I'm happy to reconsider. Moisejp (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Revised. Let me know what you think if that is okay. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

All your changes so far are improvements. Thank you! More comments:
 * I found another instance of small mid-sentence t for band names beginning with "the" ("Lott said the song was chosen as Pru's debut single as he felt that its allusions to the Miracles' song would appeal to listeners of all ages.") and that being three instances that were previously small t, I now regret that I didn't initially recommend you go the other direction and make them all small t. I was thinking it was a matter of preference (and some people strongly prefer large T). But digging around I was reminded that small t actually seems to be Wikipedia policy: Manual_of_Style/Music. I'm torn because I don't want to feel like I'm coercing my small t preference on you if you have a strong preference for large T, but then again, it does seem to be MOS policy. How would you feel about possibly changing them all to small t's? Moisejp (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have changed them all back to small t. I do not have a strong preference either way, and the MOS Wikipedia policy makes sense to me. I am happy as long as it is consistent throughout the article. Aoba47 (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Singles: "David Dickinson, a music director at WHUR-FM, felt the single would be appropriate for radio and praised its production and Pru's voice.[3] A writer from Billboard magazine praised the lyrics and Pru's vocal performance..." Two sentences in a row with "praised". Not the end of the world, but could be nice to vary a little—for example with "lauded" or "complimented". I don't believe you use either of those in the article currently. Moisejp (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestions; for some reason, I missed that. I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * References: Can refs #12 and 13 be combined? Can refs #28 and 29 be combined? Moisejp (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Reference 12 and 13 were used to show that the album was released on different types of medium. I have combined them together through a note. If you possible, could you please specify what you mean about references 28 and 29? Thank you in advance and your help so far. I apologize for my confusion on this part. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the reason Moisejp wants ref 28 & 29, now 26 & 27, to be changed is because he thinks you placed the same reference twice. Maybe in their titles you could specify that the former is about the Billboard 200 charts while the latter is about the R&B Album charts. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I have changed the titles to be more specific. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, both of you. I think it is clearer for the reader now. Aoba, I still have a few more comments to make. I'll try hard to finish them off this weekend. Thanks for your patience. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments thus far. I am very grateful to have another person look through this as it has improved the article a great deal. And there is no reason to feel rushed. Take as much time as you need. I am not in a hurry to have this promoted. I simply want it to be the best that it can possibly be. I hope you have a wonderful weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * ""Aaroma" was released as the album's second single under the new title "Aaroma (of a Man)".[17] Despite this change, the song was still released under its original title for vinyl and CD releases." Kind of confusing. I see ref #17 specifically mentions the name change, but the next sentence is contradictory and confusing. From refs #18 and 19, it looks like it's talking about the vinyl single and the CD single where the name wasn't changed. Does that mean only the cassette single had the name change? If so, can we definitively say the single was "released... under the new title"? Maybe it would be better to just avoid the question of the name change at all—since it is kind of a minor detail in the first place, and because the whole issue seems to create too many unanswered questions. Moisejp (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have remove the sentence about the CD and vinyl releases completely as it does overly complicate matters. I also do not physically own either versions of the single so I am not entirely sure about the accuracy of this. I do admit that I relied on Pru's entry page on Discogs, and the accuracy of that website can be very hit-or-miss. Hope that makes sense and thank you for bringing it up. It seems that the release of the single was a little weird. Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. I started to write a long-ish answer about how the images in Discogs can be surely be trusted—even if the info users type in manually cannot—and are evidence that some releases were simply titled "Aaroma" (and that your strategy of referencing the releases themselves should be valid). But then I noticed that they're both labeled "Promo" so I don't think they necessarily reflect what went out on commercial releases. If you've done research and haven't found any other usable sources that there were commercial single releases called simply "Aaroma", then I think what you have now should be good.
 * Minor suggestion: Instead of "under the new title "Aaroma (of a Man)" ", how about something like "under the adjusted/modified title..." (or something similar)? Something where the nuance is that it's not a completely new title, it's just been tweaked. Just an idea. Moisejp (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I cannot find anything outside of the Discogs reference to support the Promo releases so I think it is best to keep it out of the article. I have also revised the sentence introducing the "Aaroma" single release as suggested above. Aoba47 (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aoba. I guess my last comment for you is that the article relies a little bit more on quotes than is ideal, especially in the Conception and sound and Reception sections. As a writer of music articles myself, I know that finding the right balance of quotations vs. paraphrases is not always easy. It's tempting to use quotations liberally—partly because individual quotations can add flavour to the article—but when too many get used it can dilute the article's impact. Lately I always do an editing stage of my articles where I examine each quotation to see how much value/flavour it adds and how difficult it would be to paraphrase (as you know, some are harder than others). While I'm looking at the individual ones, at the back of my mind I'm aware of the the total quantity of quotations in the article. I have an online thesaurus open and I work on making decisions of which quotations I want to try to paraphrase. In my last FAC, even when I'd gone through this process myself, one editor commented there were still too many quotations, and I had to do another round of paraphrasing, being even stricter than my previous round. I see you do already have some paraphrases in the article, so I'm not saying you haven't already gone through a similar editing process yourself. But I'm just saying I urge you to go through the article one more time, examining each quotation for whether it is really necessary and valuable, and whether it would be possible to paraphrase. If you could find at least a handful of ones to change, it would improve the balance of quotations vs. paraphrases of the article as a whole. Here are some that jump out at me as possibly good candidates, but these are just ideas (you may have your own ideas): Again, I'm by no means saying you should change all of these. I'm just saying if I was going through the process of trying to find the right balance, these are some candidates that I might consider as possibilities. Moisejp (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "[h]er lyrics were the thing that stood out the most for me"
 * "the repetitious things that are playing on the radio"
 * "influence [from] the spoken word scene"
 * "Pru is a live performance artist and, being new, we wanted people to get their first impression of her in that environment"
 * "aggressive retail marketing plan"
 * "open-minded, whimsical influence,"
 * "singer with a vision"
 * "tongue-in-cheek, cynical 'Bills, Bills, Bills'-type junk"
 * ""[p]icking up the lyrical gauntlet"
 * Thank you for your comment and advice on how to handle quotes. Going through the article specifically to gauge the use/reliance on quotes is a really good idea and I will definitely keep that in mind for my future GANs and FACs. I have gone through the article, and have reduced the use of quotes. Please let me know what you think, and thank you again for the review. I hope you had an enjoyable weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, I'm happy to support now. Well done. Moisejp (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Panagiotis Zois

 * In the lead section, wouldn't it be better if you said "Candles peaked" at the end? I mean it's more or less clear you're talking about "Candles" but you do also have another sentence in between.
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Repetition of the word "by" in "Background and recording" (p. 1).
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In "Reception", rewrite the beginnign of "The reviewer continued", or maybe combine it wit the previous sentence (p. 2).
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Besides that, I didn't see anything else wrong with the article. Good job :D. Did Pru ever release a second album or something? PanagiotisZois (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. I do not believe that Pru ever released or anything following this album; she kind of fell off the map after this unfortunately. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I made an edit here for my last comment of combining the sentences. Are you alright with the change? PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me; thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK now that my comments have been adressesed and my candles have melted, I can support the articles promotion. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Status Update
I believe that this is ready for promotion. I would greatly appreciate a status update for this nomination when either of you have the time. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Rather unusually, this article seems to have had an excellent sourcing and content review but we are light on prose comments. Scanning through, there was nothing jumping out at me, but I'm not sure that the prose flows quite like it could. I don't think there's anything bad here, but I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look. , I don't suppose you could give this a quick look could you? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. Just wanted to let you know that Corinne has completed a c/e of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: Given the number of supports, and Corinne's copy-edit, I think we're good to go now. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.