Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Theodora Kroeber/archive1

Theodora Kroeber

 * Nominator(s): SusunW, Vanamonde

This article is about Theodora Kroeber, writer, psychologist, and anthropologist. Referred to sometimes as the wife of well-known anthropologist Alfred Kroeber, Theodora built her own reputation as an author after starting to write in her fifties. This nomination is the result of a collaboration with SusunW, and received feedback pre-FAC from, as well as a GA review from some time ago. All feedback is welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley
I informally reviewed the article a few days ago, and such quibbles − all minor − as I had then were attended to. On re-reading the article I find nothing further to cavil about, except the order of the citations [5] [1] [4] at the end of the second sentence of the Early life section, which looks a bit odd. I am happy to support the elevation of the article to FA. It is well written, widely sourced from what are evidently scholarly sources, as well illustrated as I assume is possible, seems balanced and proportionate, and meets all the FA criteria in my view. −  Tim riley  talk   18:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated; your review was very helpful. I've fixed the cite order issues, caused by my late addition of a footnote. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments

 * WIkilink Indigenous peoples of California in the first sentence
 * "Married once in 1920" - don't think the word "once" is needed there. It suggests that she was only ever married once, which wasn't the case
 * "and received high praise from commentators for its writing" - I think the last three words are redundant as a book isn't really likely to be praised for anything else
 * "Kracaw graduated in 1915, as the valedictorian of her class at Telluride High School and" => "Kracaw graduated in 1915, as the valedictorian of her class at Telluride High School, and"
 * "Kracaw enrolled at the University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley), in 1915" - don't think that comma is needed
 * "the cornerstone of the Kroeber's lengthy marriage" => "the cornerstone of the Kroebers' lengthy marriage"
 * That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I've addressed all your comments. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Image review - pass

 * Consider adding alt text. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Added "refer to caption", though I've never been a 100% certain when that's enough and when it's not... Vanamonde (Talk) 23:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Added alt text description. (Vanamonde, alt text is not the same as the caption. It is text read by a screen reader for someone who cannot see it to describe what is in the image before the caption which tells the person why that image is relevant.) SusunW (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes sense, I seem to remember someone told me not to describe the image; but it's quite likely I misunderstood when that's not needed... Vanamonde (Talk) 15:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Both images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Drive by comments

 * Any reason why the ISSN for "Memorial to Theodora Kroeber Quinn (1897-1979)" is not given?
 * Wasn't generated using the same tool, I suppose...added.
 * Similarly "'Towards an Archaeology of the Present': Theodora Kroeber and Ursula K. Le Guin".
 * Added.
 * No publisher location for Reid, 1997?
 * I do not find location a very useful indicator of anything for a book or journal with a linked publisher, particularly in the modern day when it's likely to have been simultaneously printed in many places. I've removed locations for all except newspapers, I hope that's a reasonable approach...
 * The MoS states "Citations for books typically include: ... place of publication". It is broadly accepted that this may be omitted, so long as it is done consistently; so fine.


 * Similarly for Buzaljko, 1987; Sackman, 2010 and Clifford, 2013. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * See above. thanks for the comments as always, any chance I could persuade you to examine my prose? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Possibly. I would like to, but let me see if RL time permits. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.


 * "was writer Ursula K. Le Guin." Perhaps a definite article, to avoid false title?
 * Agreed. - V
 * "She published The Inland Whale, a collection of translated Native Californian narratives in 1959, and in 1961 published Ishi in Two Worlds, an account of Ishi, the last member of the Yahi people of Northern California, whom Alfred Kroeber had befriended and studied between 1911 and 1916." A long and complex sentence. (Which contains "published" twice.)
 * Holy crap batman... - V
 * "and received high praise from commentators from contemporary reviewers." ?
 * Fixed - V
 * "She served as a Regent". Why the upper-case R?
 * No reason, removed. - V
 * "She has been described as having influenced her husband's anthropological work, and for having inspired interest in ..." Grammar: You have "She has been described as ... and for having inspired interest in". Either both "as" or both "for" please.
 * Fixed. - V
 * "According to her family, Charles's family were". Could "family" twice in three words be avoided? And why do we need "According to her family"? They don't sound like a HQ RS.
 * An interesting point. The source we're citing is Buzaljko, the biographer, who is reliable; but she reports it as "According to family lore..." which I presume means she was unable to verify it herself. Hence the wording here. It seems to me that if the biographer thought it worth including, we ought to include it too, but perhaps rewording is in order? - V
 * Just because a biographer felt it worth including is not a necessary reason for us to. Or we would include everything in the biography. Including someting which you assume the source was unable to verify seems dubious to me. Even hedged with caveats in the text it may not be worth the effort. But if you wish to give it a go, it's your call.
 * I've omitted the qualifier and what seems to me the obvious bits of lore: the mother's heritage isn't qualified, and the father's Polish heritage would seem to me non-controversial...and I like to include that, when available. If you would strongly prefer omitting altogether, I will do so. - V
 * Nah. It's your article. And it seems entirely defensible now.


 * Is "worked in the nurses' corps" US English for 'worked as a nurse', or something else?
 * No, it's "worked as a nurse" as best as I can tell, except these days a nurse is someone you'd expect to have a degree in being a nurse, whereas TK was then fresh out of high-school, so I followed the wording of the source. If it's just confusing, I'll simplify. - V
 * Nursing corps was common lingo at the time (end of WWI) even in the UK for those hundreds (thousands?) of women who weren't actually nurses by profession but volunteered to help with hospitals as part of their "war work". - S
 * So if we were writing in 1922 it would be an aceptable usage. But as it seems to be 2022 ...
 * Afterthought: Ms F Nightingale, who lived not far from where I do, never gained a formal qualification in nursing and had a total of four months semi-formal training. Yet I suspect few of our readers would quibble with her being described as a "nurse". Autres temps, autres moeurs.
 * Changed it to worked as a volunteer nurse. - S


 * "since the lower elevation there". Perhaps "elevation" → 'altitude'. (Unless you actually mean that their new accomodation was on the first floor.)
 * To my semi-technical understanding, the definition of altitude is distance from the earth's surface, and so the term shouldn't be applied to dwellings at all... - V
 * Wiktionary has "Altitude: The absolute height of a location, usually measured from sea level", with an example of "As the altitude increases, the temperature gets lower, so remember to bring warm clothes to the mountains." So I would suggest going with that.
 * So adjusted. - V
 * "and facing both blindness and tuberculosis". I can kind of see how one could be facing blindness, but tuberculosis? How does that happen?
 * Buzaljko says "threatened with tuberculosis and blindness", which I interpret to mean he was infected with tuberculosis, and that (or other illnesses) were probably going to blind him. But that's just my view, other explanations could be derived...I'm open to suggestions on wording, and I wonder if saw anything informative in the news stories? Vanamonde (Talk) 02:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I find nothing at all about tuberculosis or failing business in newspapers. Newspapers say he had Bright's disease and complications from that caused him to lose his sight, forcing him to close his successful business. You do notes differently from me, V, so check that I did it consistently.- S


 * Link majoring, for the benefit of non-North Americans.
 * Done - V
 * "She considered majoring in economics and English literature". Do you mean 'She considered majoring in economics or English literature'?
 * I saw it as "she was considering economics and English literature" but "or" is unambiguous, so switched. - V
 * "that had been clients of a juvenile court." What is involved in being a client of a court? Is this US English?
 * Unsure, to be honest, it's from the source. Some googling does not illuminate it further: how is "ten families from which children had been in juvenile court", as the children is clearly implied by the court system? - V
 * I agree the wording in Buzajlko is awkward. If a juvenile offender is convicted, they become a ward of the state, but she is talking about "families", so we don't know at what phase these children were, i.e. accused, convicted, in parental care, wards, etc. Perhaps to modify your suggestion a bit V, "ten families whose children had been in juvenile court." - S


 * "in the 1923 Berkeley, California fire"." I thought this was generally known as 'the 1923 Berkeley fire'.
 * Oddly, article title and bolded title are different. Google scholar hits favor omitting "California", which I've done via piping. - V
 * "Clifton left to return to Berkeley, but died en route in Denver". Is the cause of death known?
 * He was ill with pneumonia; but the sources stop short of saying that's what he died of. Perhaps Susun knows more, she dug out the details of his death. - V
 * No idea what he died from. Newspapers didn't say. - S


 * "and she decided to study anthropology". Just a suggestion - delete "she".
 * I tried it, but that read to me like she had decided in Santa Fe, which wasn't the intended meaning... - V
 * "Anthropological career and second marriage". Would it be possible to provide a date for this section earlier than the second paragraph?
 * Added, first sentence. - V
 * "Theodora went to consult Alfred Louis Kroeber". Perhaps 'consulted Alfred Louis Kroeber'. And is the middle name necessary?
 * Agreed, unnecessary. Done. - V
 * "to help bolster class sizes to legitimize course offerings". Should "to" be 'and'? If not, I can't work out what you are driving at here. How would low class sizes reflect on the material offered, much less illegitimise them@
 * I'll leave this also for SusunW, who handled the Kerns source. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * According to the source the classes were very small, for example in one course there were 9 students, 4 of whom were women;(pp 77-78) in another there were 3 students, 2 were women. "…graduate programs in anthropology had to attract a certain number of qualified students for the programs to continue and the new profession to grow… The presence of women as students clearly helped to expand the number of graduate courses offered… their presence actually benefited [Julian Steward], resulting as it did in a broader range of graduate courses". (p 120) In other words, if students didn't enroll, the course(s) would be eliminated; if sufficient students participated, they could add additional courses. - S
 * Consider boiling this down into a brief footnote. I don't insist on this, but I think it would be helpful.
 * Okay. - S


 * "who told Theodora his tribe's legend". Singular; the tribe only had one legend?
 * Adjusted, certainly more than one. - V
 * "The redwood house has been described as the cornerstone of the Kroebers' lengthy marriage." Suggest moving this to earlier in the paragraph, when the house is first discussed.
 * Done. - V
 * "she wrote a novel about Telluride." Um, the last individual mentioned is Ursula, who famously wrote novels.
 * Indeed, this whole thing began as a side-project of my work on Ursula, with which you're familiar...this was the mother, clarified. - V
 * "This piece was never published". It may just be me, but I do not usually think of something as substantial as a novel as a "piece".
 * Hadn't considered that; how is "work"? - V
 * Yep.


 * "Nine pieces were collected, that shared a theme of heroines." I know that US English does crazy thinks with commas, but are you sure about this one?
 * It isn't needed, removed. - V


 * "at which point it was still in print." It seems to still be in print.
 * It does, but a secondary source is hard to come by...I found a 2015 review saying "still in print", if we want to better I think we're going to have to use one of the publishers. UC press has a 50th anniversary edition up. - V
 * "reviewers said that". As you then go on to quote, I assume that this is a reviewer, singular.
 * Fixed. - V
 * "Retrospective assessments of the book are more mixed. Writing in 2010, historian Douglas Cazaux Sackman ..." (Is the middle name necessary?) In what way was Sackman's assessment "mixed"?
 * Removed middle name; Sackman's review isn't mixed, but the recent reviews as a body are...it seemed a pretty obvious summary to me, given that some reviews were negative, but if you feel that's wandering into OR I'm open to suggestions. - V
 * I assumed that it was something like that I am not concerned on an OR front, just that reading it one is a little puzzled. Not a big deal if you wish to leave as is. Ot move Sackman's comments to the end of the section?
 * Moving is a good suggestion, done. That way we're leading with an obviously mixed assessment. - V


 * "which she had written previously with Alfred.[25][45][46]: 82". The "82" seems to be a sole superscript page location; perhaps move it down into Notes.
 * done - S

And that's all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "described them both as "superb stylists"". Hang on, both books were "stylists"?
 * Both Kroebers, now added - V
 * Thanks as always. I've worked my way through, a couple replies for you to consider. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Source review
Footnote numbers refer to this version. Sources are reliable, and the links all work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really a source review point, but is it intentional that you have a subheading for "Notes", but no subheading for the numbered citations?
 * You're inconsistent about using a publisher parameter in your journal citations; it's missing from about half-a-dozen of them.
 * For cite news, you skip giving locations in some obvious cases such as the NY Times, but then you give it in other obvious cases such as the Sacramento Bee.
 * Thanks . I've removed the publisher for journals; it often isn't meaningful information, anyhow; and added locations for the newspapers. I'm not sure about keeping it only for non-obvious ones, that seems a little subjective. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Pass. Yes, I guess it is a bit subjective, but it's an option people take.  I think there's a short list somewhere in the MoS of the cities one doesn't have to add further identification for when used as publisher locations -- e.g. London, New York, Paris, but Reading, UK, and Easton, Pennsylvania.  That same list would probably work as the "obvious" list.  But putting them all in is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Support from czar
Nice to see these Le Guin-related articles continue! I copy edited some sections directly but wanted to bring a few thoughts here for consideration:
 * Is there a reason why so many sentences are using a compound ", and" format when both clauses are connected ideas that don't need separation? I.e., what is the function of the comma in "Charles's family were recent Polish migrants, and Phebe had grown up in Wyoming"?
 * removed comma in that sentence. - S


 * It's unclear whether she moved with her family to Orland and if she did, whether she worked as a volunteer nurse there; relatedly, there is a fair amount of depth on what the father did in Orland that seems tangential to the biography at hand. It could be summarized as that his business and health failed, culminating with his suicide without the details of the local chamber of commerce and Bright's disease, etc., unless that is somehow important?
 * Nurse in Colorado, fixed. Moved it to the note to explain about the discrepancies in sources and summarized. - S


 * "Nine pieces were collected" Unclear if the book is just these nine or whether this is some special subset of the book's stories. Also can recast to remove passive voice.
 * Addressed passive voice, edited slightly. There were only nine stories, but some commentary from Kroeber also. - V
 * "Described as a classic" By whom? If this was phrased "A 'classic'" then we'd know it is whoever wrote the citation. Same with "A review volume stated" vs. "One reviewer stated".
 * Adjusted wording on the classic. Not sure the other needs changing; it's more descriptive and less an assessment. - V
 * "Ishi had died of tuberculosis in 1916, and Theodora undertook to write an account of his life" This implies a connection but there was a great gap in-between 1916 and 1960.
 * There's no "and" right now; there's separate sentences. Not sure who made the change, but it looks better to me. - V
 * It was challenging to write Ishi and it recounted the destruction of the Yahi people but those are presented as two separate ideas. Was it the destruction of the Yahi people that made the book difficult to write?
 * It was both; the destruction of the people, and Ishi's loneliness. Adjusted wording. - V
 * "A review of the 1964 version noted that it was illustrated by Ruth Robbins" Shouldn't this fact be separated from the section on reviewer opinions?
 * Agreed. Moved up to where the version is first discussed. - V


 * "Brown was suffering from pneumonia" When they married? Or intermittently through their three years together?
 * Sources do not give more details - S
 * It currently implies that his early death was due to pneumonia (or else why mention it)—is that the case? If not, it would be trivia and can be removed. czar
 * It feels to me like context for their relationship, rather than a cause of death; but if that's unpersuasive to you, I can remove it. - V


 * Are there any details about their courtship, given their difference in age/power?
 * Sadly none that I've seen outside Kroeber's own biography of Alfred, and even there details are sparse; she writes of him, and of herself, very little of what they did together. - V
 * I found a little tidbit, that the wedding was private and came as a surprise to the Berkeley staff.
 * Sourced to (p. 96, available in WP:TWL). There is a very similar article by Steward the same year in the American Anthropologist that reworks that sentence (, p. 1047) but it still seems fair to cite the former, and I think that gives the courtship sufficient context.  czar  16:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A good find, thank you, though oddly littered with typos. I've added a sentence. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The transition between the Anthropological career and Writing career sections is somewhat awkward. It introduces The Inland Whale and then reintroduces it in the next paragraph. Thinking about how best to resolve, is there a reason for the separate Writing career heading? The Ishi section is itself part of her Anthropological career, no? The heading could just be removed and any overlap between those two mentioned paragraphs removed. "Other writing" could then become a level 2 heading.
 * I agree about the redundancy, but not about the setting. The distinction is mentioned in the sources, particularly the fact that Kroeber starting writing late; and while some of her writing was anthropological, it was not academic, which the earlier work had been, not to mention the hiatus of many years between academic writing and 1959. I've addressed the redundancy; if you still think the break is an issue, we can discuss it further. - V
 * The rework looks good! I will say as a reader that the rationale for the section break isn't readily apparent to me. Together they read as an "Anthropology and writing career" combined, as they continue to be intertwined. Whether the writing is for scholastic or general audiences isn't something that stands out to me as a reader. (This is more FYI as I've already made my recommendation and won't press it further.) czar
 * I don't know, the transition seems clear to me but I've been staring at this article for a long time...if someone else makes the point, I'll make the change. - V
 * The Ishi section goes into a full accounting of its reception that seems much more appropriate for the book's article. This could be pared to a basic summary style, with the reader to link to the book's article to read more. WP:CRS has some suggestions for combining refs.
 * I've trimmed this a little bit, but I'm afraid I disagree on the substance here. This is far and away Kroeber's best known work; without it her notability itself is borderline. In sources that give her passing mention, her authorship of this book is what's mentioned. Additionally; numerically, praiseworthy sources are in greater abundance; if I were to shorten it, the more nuanced recent critique would necessarily need to be trimmed substantially, and a lot of meaning would be lost. In an article that doesn't have length issues, I would prefer not to trim more. Happy to discuss specifics further, however. - V
 * The detail does still read as a lengthy tangent. It's undeniable that it's a key part of her life, so I would ask what exactly the retrospective assessments and commentary about the book's detail is relevant to a biography of the author. When I've written about authors, it's been sufficient to write about the context that led to the book and some overview of the reception/impact of the book, without necessarily getting into book reviews unless there is something specifically noteworthy. It's slightly different when there is no article on the independent work itself, but in this case, there is a whole separate article for more depth. Otherwise the summary from the lede of that article would seem sufficient for this biography's needs. czar
 * I feel Ishi in Two Worlds also needs a bit of an update. I wrote that article, almost four years ago. When I did so, the contemporary review I had access to was Clifford, which was a mixed commentary. The Pascal source, though from 1997, I only found when rewriting this article; and the Simmons source is more recent. I would characterize both their reviews as drawing from post-colonial theory, and they contain an important thread of critique that I haven't fully incorporated at the book article. I don't think the older material is being invalidated; but were I a reviewer I would consider the author's legacy incomplete without this material. I've dropped two more sentences, but I really don't know that we should shorten further. - V
 * How are these clauses connected? If not, they should be separated.
 * That's an example of the high praise, though...and a consistent theme; even the critical reviews note that Kroeber's writing was evocative. - V


 * "others found it wanting as a scholarly biography" This is a great example of condensing refs but it appears to be glossing over criticism if the rest of the paragraph isn't similarly condensed.
 * The rest of the paragraph isn't as condensed not because it's positive, but because similar sentiments predominate among the reviews. That critique wasn't common, and it wasn't a large part of the review of those who made that point. Hence the brevity. - V

czar 16:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your considered comments. Susun has responded to some, I've responded to the others. I've disagreed with a couple of substantive suggestions, but I'm happy to discuss them in greater detail, or ask for more input. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Replies above! czar  16:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for a slow response time, work got busy this week. I've responded above; also, did you have response to the lowest two points? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was holding on those two pending response to the larger question about what depth to go into with the Ishi book. My strong take is that it's still uneven/undue weight to cover the one Ishi volume in that depth, i.e., depth that does not concern the biography of its author, especially compared to the way her other books are handled. I'm not familiar with another biography article that goes into singular depth on a sole volume when said book has its own summary style split page. But I wouldn't say that this necessarily makes the biography fall short of "engaging and professional" prose. Happy to support on prose—nice work! czar  07:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Harry
An excellent piece of writing. I'm really picking nits here.
 * Thanks! Comments nonetheless much appreciated. - V


 * I'm curious how common it was for a woman to study psychology in those days. You touch on it with her anthropology studies later on but I was curious whether there was any backlash to her earlier studies.
 * It's a good question, but to be honest I've seen nothing that touches on this that's Kroeber specific. I'm sure could shed light on the larger question, but given that TK's psychology career was brief, I don't know if we could use any of it. - V
 * Sorry. I don't have a computer right now. It went to the shop on Thanksgiving and I am borrowing my husband's for a few minutes. The history of women in psychology is parallel to other fields. They were first barred from studying at all, then when admitted to study in the 1890s were not allowed to obtain degrees. In 1906 of the 175 members of the APA only 22 were women. Very little is known of the women who obtained degrees in psychology between 1906 and 1945, as like all women, they were not subjects documented for the historic record until the mid-1970s. Obviously, all of these are general sources and none specify whether this impacted Kroeber. - S

—HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 14:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * adapted as made-for-television films in 1978[37] and 1992. Being really picky here but the MoS discourages links on dates and those links are arguably Easter eggs; is there a better way to work the links into the prose?
 * It was an attempt to be concise, but I agree the easter eggs are a problem...reworked. - V
 * However, Pascal argued that the narrative's goal was one of assimilation "However" is a "word to watch" because it can imply contradictions that weren't necessarily intended. "Nonetheless" might be preferable here.
 * I agree it's overused; it seemed okay here but no harm in "nonetheless", so changed. - V
 * Some dates for the retrospective reviews might be helpful for context.
 * So added. 2019, 1997, 2013, 2010. - V
 * while others found it wanting as a scholarly biography is there any more to say on what was wanting?
 * Stocking offers as an example TK's reference to Francis Galton as "John Galton", while Thoresen says it is "not a critically executed intellectual biography, and it stops short of making explicit several striking but muted psychological insights"...which I think are too much detail in one case, and too vague in the other...if you wish to see the sources, I'm happy to send them over. - V
 * She notes that the images included therein were poor I see someone has put a "who?" tag on this. Is "she" Kroeber?
 * Missed the tags somehow...yes, Kroeber. Fixed. - V
 * It is all the record there is...We believe Ellipses should be spaced (preferably with a nbsp in front) per MOS:ELLIPSIS
 * Done. - V
 * Another reviewer expressed disappointment Do they have a name?
 * Lowell Bean, whose article oddly does not exist. Added. - V
 * She reflected on the impact of age gaps within marriage, using her own experience of having been much younger than her second husband and older than her third husband, in a 1976 essay. Dashes rather than commas might improve readability here.
 * I admit to an entirely unreasonable prejudice against sentences hyphenated that way; but I've reworked in a way that I think reads easier than either - V
 * There's a "page needed" tag by footnote 65.
 * Fixed, though really the entire article is arguing this point. - V
 * Thanks for the comments; I believe I've addressed them all. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with your answers. What's left is mostly editorial judgement and that's usually best exercised by the people most familiar with the source material. Support. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)