Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Heart of Thomas/archive2

The Heart of Thomas

 * Nominator(s): Morgan695 (talk) and Lady freyja (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Moto Hagio's seminal 1974 manga series, noted for its significant influence on Japanese girls' comics of the late 1970s and onward. Currently a Good Article, the article was nominated at FAC in January, though the nomination was autofailed due to a lack of substantive reviews. Since then, the article has undergone a substantial peer review – thank you to Aoba47, Fowler&fowler, SandyGeorgia, Link20XX, Chipmunkdavis, and Vanamonde93 for their comments, with special thanks to Fowler&fowler for their exhaustive source review. I am re-nominating this article in the hopes that in its current state, it will attract enough substantive reviews to be passed for FA. (Note: I've listed Lady freyja as a co-nominator, as the article is adapted from the equivalent article on the French Wikipedia which they were the primary author of, and which is itself an FA. The co-nomination is not expectation/obligation for them to participate in this FAC, though they are certainly welcome to do so.) Morgan695 (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe this nomination is now ready to be reviewed by a coordinator, as it is currently at 5 supports/0 opposes, and has undergone image and source reviews. Morgan695 (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (Noting for clarity that while some supports appear to be brief, all of the supporting editors offered substantive feedback either at the article's first FAC, or at its peer review.) Morgan695 (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That all looks good to me. However, the nomination has only been open for 12 days. I would want to keep it open for another week or so to give sufficient time for any other potential reviewers to chip in with comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Assuming no major dissension arises, I'll ping you in a week. Morgan695 (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments from SandyGeorgia
 * I participated at the peer review, so will hold off on Supporting until independent editors have been through. I anticipate supporting, but point out for now that the considerable, exhaustive and thorough work done by Fowler & fowler means that a source review (in every sense) has already been done (a time saver!! ... I hope Ealdgyth and Nikki don’t make a liar of me :). I believe the article is at FA standards, but hold off also because this is not an area I am familiar with.  Please ping me if I forget to come back to this later. (The HarvRef errors I mentioned on talk should be cleared up.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, per your revision I've resolved those two Harv errors. I'll also note that User:Nikkimaria completed an image review in the first FAC, but three images have been since added that need to be reviewed (File:Yoshiya Nobuko.jpg, File:Elsie Leslie as Little Lord Fauntleroy cph.3b10326.jpg and File:Amaterasu cave crop.jpg). Morgan695 (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I should point out that I did only an extended spot check in the Analysis section, and even there haven't checked ISBN numbers (I vaguely recall that a couple did not link). So the basic stuff may need a quick glance or two. Any outstanding content-related issues, I have no doubt, Morgan695 and Lady Freyja will sort out. If you have any specific questions about which my input is needed, please ping me.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, having followed all edits and reviews during and since the Peer review; a real piece of scholarship! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Lady Freyja
Hello, and thanks to both for your notifications. The article changed quite a lot since the last time I read it, you all did a great job! I will take time to review in details all the changes and discussions, for improving the French article when I have some free time for working on Wikipedia.

I won't speak about the form of the article, as I am not used to the conventions of English Wikipedia, but on the substance, I have two comments:
 * The sentence "Following soon was a period of immense change and upheaval for the shōjo manga: new aesthetic styles and more narratively complex stories focusing on social issues and sexuality emerged in the 1970s, differentiating the genre from shōnen manga (manga for boys).[11]" as it is, is an oversimplification; the shōjo aesthetic style (deviating from shōnen convention) started to be developed in the 1960s decade (or more exactly at the end of 1950s one) with Macoto Takahashi, Miyako Maki, and the likes; as rightly explained in the section Visual style, Hagio and the others Year 24 mangaka only followed this trend with new contributions, but the stylistic shift was already long done by the time of the Year 24. In the page cited, Shamoon says "Chapter 4 outlined the changes that took place in girls’ magazines through the 1950s and 1960s.", referring notably to p. 90 where she wrote a subsection tiltled Takahashi Makoto and the Development of the Shōjo Manga Aesthetic, which explains this development. I made the distinction between stylistic and narrative development taking place at two different time in the French article: "À cette époque le shōjo manga est en pleine expansion et transformation : lors des années 1960, il gagne ses propres codes esthétiques qui lui permettent de se différencier du shōnen manga, et le début des années 1970 voit l'apparition d'histoires plus complexes, qui n'hésitent plus à parler de politique ou de sexualité[13]."
 * Revised this section to note the difference between narrative and aesthetic styles. Morgan695 (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * About the sentence "Following the critical and commercial success of The Rose of Versailles at rival publisher Shueisha, Shūkan Shōjo Comic editor Junya Yamamoto asked Hagio to create a series of similar length and complexity, initially planned to be serialized over the course of two to three years.[23]" In the French article, I didn't mention Yamamoto, I stayed elusive only speaking about "un éditeur" because Tamura herself doesn't mention him in the page cited "Somewhat surprisingly, it was an editor at Weekly Shōjo Komikku who solicited the serial from her rather than her pitching it him."; Yamamoto is mentioned by Tamura 19 pages later. I am myself pretty sure that it is Yamamoto who asked Hagio, but I as couldn't find any source explicitly mentioning him, I didn't either. Lady freyja (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall Thorn mentioning in the intro to the Fantagraphics edition of Thomas that it was Yamamoto who was the commissioning editor, but as I unfortunately don't have a copy of that edition for reference at the moment, I've aligned the copy per the Tamura source. Morgan695 (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I reread Thorn's introduction, when speaking about Thomas's publication, she uses the expressions "Hagio's editor" and "that same editor — by then editor-in-chief —", but she also introduced Yamamoto as Hagio's editor few paragraphs earlier "where she was welcomed by the innovative editor Junya Yamamoto". So I guess it confirms it, yes. Lady freyja (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Image review

 * The Gender image has two captions set
 * Fixed. Morgan695 (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Some images are missing alt text
 * Alt text added. Morgan695 (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Yoshiya_Nobuko.jpg is tagged as lacking author information and is missing publication date
 * This might be a tougher one to resolve, but I've reached out to the original uploader to see if they can provide that information. The image was uploaded to Commons 14 years ago, but they're still actively editing, so hopefully I'll get a response. Morgan695 (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If there's no response, or if the authorship/date can't be resolved, are either File:Yoshiya Nobuko 1947.JPG or File:Nobuko Yoshiya 01.jpg adequately attributed to be used as substitutes?. Morgan695 (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the original uploader, "I am aware that the photo is on display at the Yoshiya Nobuko Memorial Museum in Kamakura, Japan, and appears in https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/yoshiya-nobuko-memorial-museum. It can also be found in a book called 文学都市かまくら１００人, published by the Kamakura Museum of Literature in 2005". As I am unable to access that book or the museum, I cannot confirm the authorship or date of the image. Please let me know if either of the other two images posted are acceptable alternatives. Morgan695 (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The second should work. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Elsie_Leslie_as_Little_Lord_Fauntleroy_cph.3b10326.jpg needs a US PD tag
 * Added. Morgan695 (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * When and where was this image first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The uncropped version on the Library of Congress indicates that it was taken in New York, NY. No publication info is listed, just that it is a "digital file from b&w film copy neg". I've added both of these pieces of info to the Commons page. Morgan695 (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, but the current tagging is dependent on the image having been published, not just created, before 1926. If we don't know when it was published, how do we know that to be true? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've swapped the image for the one that was previously used in that section, and which passed your review in the first FAC. Morgan695 (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In the caption at the bottom of the LoC's image (link), it says "Copyright 1888 by Napoleon Sarony // Union Square, N.Y.". This information is repeated at the full listing here.— Goszei (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So this ended up being a moot point, as I've swapped this image for File:TakehisaYumeji-1926-Fujin Graph Spring 1926.png, as it far better illustrates the topic being depicted. The licensing info on the new image seems pretty comprehensive, but I wanted to ping you regardless.
 * File:Amaterasu_cave_crop.jpg needs a US PD tag and author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Added. Morgan695 (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Plead guilty. All my handiwork.  But Morgan695 will fix this I'm sure (the alt text in his nice style).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Support from Fowler&fowler

 * I took part in the peer-review. The Heart of Thomas, I'm sure meets the FAC criteria, but they in some sense are beside the point.  It's not often that accidents of fortune bring me to a new world on WP, even a wondrous one. Hagio Moto, her influences, her muses, her cohorts, the socioeconomic and cultural forces at play in post-war and 1970s Japan, and the scholars following in the wake of all, puzzling them out, have together created such a world.  It deserves notice. For that reason alone, and many besides, I'm happy to support.  Thanks and admiration for Morgan695 and  Lady freyja  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Support from Link20XX

 * I gave your previous nomination my support, and I gave a couple comments on the peer review, so I will definitely be doing the same here. You have worked tremendously hard on the article and it definitely shows. You have done excellent work that is more than worthy of a featured-article promotion in my book. I give this nomination my full Support. Link20XX (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

 * I have a question about this part from the lead, his 1919 novel Demian; the Bildungsroman genre; and the 1964 film Les amitiés particulières. Is it normal to use semicolons in this manner to separate items in a list? I am only asking about this as I am more so used to seeing semicolons used to link together two independent clauses.
 * FAC review section stalker Yes, the main function of a semi-colon is to separate two independent clauses that are closer to each other (semantically) than they are to sentences to either side of them.  Semi-colons are less commonly used in lists whose (three or more) constituents are either on the long side or have internal commas.  (But usually (in my way of thinking) when so used, a reader should know that a list is coming.) The sentence is here is: "The series draws inspiration from the works of Hermann Hesse, particularly his 1919 novel Demian; the Bildungsroman genre; and the 1964 film Les amitiés particulières."  The reader doesn't really recognize a list until the second semi-colon.  A better phrasing would be: "Influencing the series were the novels of Harmann Hesse, especially Demian (1919); the bildungsroman genre; and 1964 film Les amitiés particulières."    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC) Updated.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. The semicolon usage looked odd to me, but thank you for informing me that is a valid method. I actually never saw semicolons used this way until Wikipedia, which is why I wanted to double-check about this. I do not have a strong opinion about either wording so I will leave that up to the nominators. Aoba47 (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Rephrased to Hagio drew inspiration for the series from the novels of Hermann Hesse, especially Demian (1919); the Bildungsroman genre; and the 1964 film Les amitiés particulières. Morgan695 (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * There are two sentences in the lead's first paragraph (i.e. the series follows the events. .. and The series draws inspiration. ..) that start with the same thing. I would revise this to avoid having such close repetition.
 * Fixed now with previous revision.
 * I would identify in this sentence, It is noted as one of the earliest manga in the shōnen-ai (male-male romance) genre., who is saying this (i.e. is it critics, scholars, etc.). When I read this sentence, I immediately ask who is saying this.
 * Revised. It's not one a specific person saything this, per se, it just is one of the first in the genre. Morgan695 (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In this part of the lead, young and adolescent women, I am not really sure the difference between young and adolescent. Could you explain this to me? Looking at the description as a whole, girls' comics that are typically aimed at young and adolescent women, I am uncertain about the first part as from my understanding this style of manga is more defined by who is created and marketed to, and girls' comics implies some level of possession that I do not think it is entirely accurate. I am just uncertain if this is the best translation for shōjo manga.
 * Revised. Morgan695 (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to put this sentence, The series was originally developed by Hagio as a personal project that she did not expect would ever be published., from the lead into a more active tense? Something like,, reads better to me and puts more emphasis on Hagio.
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For this part of the lead, and has been described as a seminal work of shōjo manga, I would attributed in the text who is describing this manga in this way.
 * Replaced with the following, which I think is less fluffy and is directly cited in the article body: It significantly influenced shōjo manga as a medium, with many of the stylistic and narrative hallmarks of the series becoming standard tropes of the genre. The series has attracted considerable scholarly interest both in Japan and internationally, and has been adapted into a film, a stage play, and a novel. Morgan695 (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

These are my comments on the lead. They are very nitpick-y so apologies for that. I will review the rest of the article either tomorrow or on Tuesday. Given all of the activity both here and at the peer review (from much more experienced editors than myself), I expect my review to be short as any issues would have already been addressed by them. Aoba47 (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would avoid the following sentence construction (with X verb-ing) as shown in this example from the lead, with critics exploring the series' depiction of gender. It is something that I have seen repeatedly discouraged in FACs so I would find ways to avoid this sentence construction if it appears anywhere else in the article.
 * Resolved with previous edit. Morgan695 (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a quick additional comment. I went to check how shōjo manga was defined in the article, and I have an issue with the definition there as well. The article defines this as, Shōjo manga (girls' comics). I see no reason to change manga to comics and I would actually think would cause some confusion. I would keep manga as you have done for the shōnen manga translation in the same paragraph. I would also say "manga for girls" instead as it is more so based on the intended readership and I just think the girls' part is misleading. I wanted to add this part now as it is similar to the issue I have with the translation of this in the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Resolved with an edit above. Morgan695 (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I still think it should be "manga for girls" and not "girls' manga" (in both the translation for the lead and the article) as I believe these represent two different things. Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Replaced both instances with "comics for girls," so it also explains what "manga" is to an audience that might not recognize the term. Morgan695 (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Manga and comics are not the same thing. They have different structures and histories. Manga has passed into popular culture, and you could always wikilink the word for the readers that have never heard of it before. But, I would not consider manga and comics to be the same thing to the point that this substitution would work. Aoba47 (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I respect that interpretation, but I think it's one that is not necessarily aligned with how those terms are used in common use on Wikipedia (the article on manga literally defines it as comics or graphic novels originating from Japan). You could argue that the term "comic books" has a specific western context, but "comics" as an umbrella term for "ideas expressed with text and images" is pretty universal. Morgan695 (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I will leave that for other editors. I still disagree, but after looking at academic sources on manga, some also use the "comics" translation so you are right. I have two additional points about this. This translation is not consistently applied throughout the article. In the "Context" subsection, manga is used for this translation shōnen manga (manga for boys). The "manga"/"comics" translation should be consistent. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If an audience might not recognize the term manga, then wouldn't they be confused by how manga is used in the lead's first sentence and two more times in the lead's first paragraph without any translation? Currently, the lead introduces "manga"/"comics" translation in the second paragraph. If there are readers that would be confused by this word, wouldn't it be more beneficial to include a translation like (comics or graphic novels originating from Japan) in the lead's first sentence? Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair point, but upon reflection I think it's less about audience comprehension and more about not using a term in a definition of that term. I think this discussion is something of a moot point, as 1) per your point, "manga" has crossed over enough into the mainstream consciousness to be discernible to most people, and 2) the overwhelming consensus supports that "manga" and "comics" are synonymous, or at the very least that manga are a kind of comics. Morgan695 (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience with my review. I support the nomination for promotion. I hope you have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * PS Much as I love this article, I too remain a little troubled by the language of the lead. It is not made clear in the lead sentence that Hagio Moto wrote The Heart of Thomas for a readership of young women.  Later in the lead is not good enough.  It creates incoherence.  In my view, that needs to be stated front and center as the French FA does "est un shōjo manga écrit et dessiné par Moto Hagio." The current language does not help the ordinary, inexpert, reader for whose edification we write.  I can't be sure, but I suspect that the article might have attracted less attention in the first FAC than it deserved because of its somewhat opaque introduction. I support the article, of course, with the same enthusiasm.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * PPS I feel "Japanese manga series for young women written and illustrated by Moto Hagio," might be better. ("Girls" in place of "young women" would be OK as well if that is what the convention demands.)   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've re-written the lede in a way that hopefully satisfies both of your concerns: The Heart of Thomas (トーマの心臓) is a 1974 Japanese manga series written and illustrated by Moto Hagio. Originally serialized in Shūkan Shōjo Comic, a weekly manga magazine publishing shōjo manga (manga aimed at young and adolescent women), the series follows the events at a German all-boys gymnasium following... Morgan695 (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is better, but it still skirts around the fact that the story was targeted at adolescent and young adult women (btw, is that what you mean by young and adolescent?). It merely states that she published the story in a magazine that is read by this demographic. Has she ever written anything targeted at men?  If not substantially, then her readership needs to be stated in some fashion.  After all, a large portion of the article is about how Thomas is suffused with symbolism, signifiers, and allegories that are of meaning mostly to women, mirroring conflicts that are mostly (though not uniquely) those of women.
 * Now that I've read the lead, I think a bigger problem might be that the lead is not an adequate summary of the article. I'm sorry to unload these minor misgivings here, in the fashion of afterthoughts, but I'll try to find some time in the next few days and expand the lead a little to make it more representative of the article body.  I will do so on the talk page.  As I've already offered support, it will be less confusing if others comment here.  And you can tell me on the talk page what you think.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In response to the ping, I appreciate the change and I do not have any issue with it. I believe that Moto Hagio primarily writes shōjo manga (i.e. manga marketed young women). To avoid the confusion about the magazine, would it be more beneficial to somehow identify this as a shōjo manga in the very first sentence? Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, just wanted to follow up on your comments re: the lead. Now that the nomination is at 5 supports and has undergone source and image reviews it's approaching the point where the FAC could reasonably be closed, but I wanted to make sure this was resolved first. Morgan695 (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We can discuss it (if need be) after promotion on the article's talk page.  Not a big deal right now. All the best.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Support from Vanamonde

 * Happy to support; I reviewed the previous FAC, where most of my concerns with prose were addressed; and my most substantive commment, about the theme of coming-of-age, has also since been taken care of. I have made some minor copy-edits, but I have nothing further to complain about. This is a solid piece of work. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review

 * Bibliography: Use an alternative to colons for headers per MOS:PSEUDOHEAD. Heartfox (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 05:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass
Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

References
 * Formatting
 * Ref 32 appears to be missing "Anime News Network"
 * Added. Morgan695 (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Date missing for ref 31
 * Added. Morgan695 (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You may want to add University of Hawaii Press to ref 39, as you have the publisher in the journals below
 * Added. Morgan695 (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure "|last=School of Arts and Sciences|first=East Asian Languages and Civilizations" really make sense for ref 40; we have no idea of knowing who wrote her bio here — and in the future you can just do "|author=" :) — I would stick to put this as the "|website="
 * Revised. Morgan695 (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ref 43 is formatted differently than the other book refs; the page range is also incomplete. I will also note that this is the only ref you include the state in the location
 * Revised. Morgan695 (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * trans-title for ref 83 would be nice
 * Added. Morgan695 (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Biblio
 * You have "Canada" here for two of the ANN refs, but not earlier in References; since it's a website, I wouldn't think it's inclusion is necessary, but if you differ that's fine, it just needs to be consistent
 * Removed. Morgan695 (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Both The main issue with refs, besides these minor nitpicks above, is the designation of "References" and "Bibliography"; it remains ambiguous. What I mean is, you have a journal article in the refs (Shamoon) and some in the biblio (Hori, for example). I assumed you were putting the ones with only one citation in the refs, and those with others in the bibio, but Nagaike suggests this isn't the case. Likewise, one of the ANN citations is in the refs, while the others in the biblio; The Atlantic article is in the biblio but Gentosha Plus ones in the refs. I would think the simplest solution (though there are certainly others available) would be to move all refs with authors into the biblio and replace the current citations with sfn back to there.
 * That was the idea, but it looks like some books crept up into the references. All reviews, books, and scholarly articles should be under "Bibliography" now, while non-sfn references under "references" are either unauthored pages and/or basic newswire-type stories. Morgan695 (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, well, it looks good now. Aza24 (talk)


 * Reliability
 * In light of the subject-matter and analysis by F&F at PR, I'm inclined to give lee-way for what could otherwise be seen as not "high-quality sources". No issues here.


 * Verifiability
 * I would recommend adding the doi at the bottom here for the Kaoru ref.
 * I would love to, but the problem is that the listed DOI is incorrect. Following https://doi.org/10.7936/b9mm-7080 takes you to an entirely different article. Morgan695 (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No doubts here, especially in light of F&F's most thorough spotchecks at PR. Aza24 (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Response above. Morgan695 (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks great, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)