Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/To Kill a Mockingbird/archive1


 * 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 not promoted 02:22, November 27, 2007.

To Kill a Mockingbird
Self-nomination - I've worked on this article for several months, bringing it to GA status and improving it significantly since then. The novel is a top priority and I believe it should be featured... Moni3 (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support incredibly great article &#39;&#39;&#91;&#91;User:Kitia&#124;Kitia&#93;&#93;&#39;&#39; (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Query I was looking at the sources in this article and they seemed a bit thin on the scholarship side. For example, have you seen Readings on To Kill a Mockingbird, edited by Terry O'Neill? When I searched the MLA database for "to kill a mockingbird", I found a bunch of articles not included here. Is that because they were unhelpful, unaccessible, or something else? I just want to understand how the sources were chosen for the article. Thanks. Awadewit |  talk  02:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That book is not available to me. I just checked the library I use, which is a very large library. There are some parts of books and articles that I did read and decided not to use because they were so specific to one part of the book, or they were - I don't know how to describe this - an essay on the symbolism of right and left based on the testimony of Heck Tate and Mayella Ewell. Personal reflections on the book, the South African response to the book. I read a lot on it, but didn't feel that including everything was appropriate for an encyclopedic article. What I used was overriding in theme, or repeated by more than one reviewer. --Moni3 (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that not everything should be included ("encyclopedic" is a bit of a misnomer). However, I am curious why you chose (at times) to reference themes, for example, to newspaper articles rather than scholarly works, if you saw them repeated? I think you have precisely the right idea of using what is repeated. I think we as editors just have to be very careful what we use as sources for literature articles. What is a reliable source for a novel? I would argue that the scholarship published on it is the most reliable source. I also noticed that one entire subsection on the meaning of the novel's title has no sources. Without sources, this looks like original research, particularly statements such as "The mockingbird motif is used throughout the book to symbolize the innocence of various victims of injustice". No matter how obvious such a statement might seem, it must be sourced. Also, all quotations from the book must be sourced to an edition of the book. Lining up quotations with interpretations is also somewhat tricky. I tend to only use quotations I have seen others use. That way I cannot be accused of interpreting the text myself. How have you chosen your quotations? Awadewit | talk  04:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have sourced the quotes from the book, and contacted your talk page about MLA. I incorporated the statements about how the book was titled with the above section about "Death of innocence" to avoid redundant sourcing and writing. The quotes I used (about courage, about it's a sin to kill a mockingbird) from TKaM were used in the sources I claimed. I didn't choose them.--Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * With the helpful tip on MLA, I was able to request 7 articles or books I had not previously had access to. However, the search of the MLA database that brought me 42 responses, of those, five of them I cited. Three, I think, articles on the list I decided were inappropriate for the scope of the article (the aforementioned symbolism of right and left, for example), one was in Italian and one was in Chinese. So give me a couple days to go through a few more articles and I'll see what I can do to add to some scholarly references. --Moni3 (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You might also try other search terms, such as "harper lee". And of course the bibliographies of the articles and the books will lead you to other sources. Oftentimes bibliographies are some of the most fruitful lists of sources. Awadewit | talk  22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite the fact that I included quite a few more articles as references, I will be adding more, but I can't until Sunday due to the library's being closed and other events beyond my control. --Moni3 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not just about adding references, I'm afraid. It is clear that there is a sizable body of material that you have not read that needs to be read and pondered. You may need to rethink the structure of the article dramatically - research guides what information is included in an article and how it is structured. That is why it is so important to have good research. I would not expect that you would be able to read several articles and books, analyze their worth for the article, integrate the useful material, and the polish the writing in the space of 2-3 weeks here at FAC. Awadewit | talk  01:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not that sizable, really. Honestly, it isn't. Depressing, but true. Unless the article is to be centered on how TKaM is a legal literary work, the many ways a teacher can use TKaM as a lesson in Language Arts (there is a sizable amount of info at NCTE.org), or I should expand the film portion of the article, there's maybe half a dozen, ten at the most, more articles I need to read, ponder, and determine if they are an appropriate fit in this article - and many of those are from Southern Literary Journal. I looked up "Harper Lee" in the MLA database, and I'll read what there is more for her, but I am finding that I am going beyond bibliographies. When a work references another, I go off and read it. I'm running out of references to go off and read. --Moni3 (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose While there is much solid information in this article and I know that this editor has put a great deal of effort into this article, I am not confident that it is as well-researched as it could be (see above), it is not yet comprehensive, and it could be organized better.
 * In light of the changes I have made for the FAC review, I no longer consider the article to be encyclopedic (which I rather thought was the point). It now rivals literary articles written about it, in my opinion, and my opinion counts a lot since I've read so many of these literary articles about this book.--Moni3 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what you mean here. The best literature articles on wikipedia rely on published literary scholarship as the foundation of the article (WP:RS) but make that scholarship understandable and accessible to the lay reader. Awadewit | talk  01:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Encyclopedic", to me at least, means an article to is a general overview of the topic, including many viewpoints but rarely an in-depth look at the subject. It provides references for folks who are curious to go search on their own if they want to learn more. Having read all these articles, this one on Wikipedia is fast approaching its own literary article instead of general overview. --Moni3 (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we all agree that "encyclopedic" means a general overview, but wikipedia's FAs have come to have a much higher standard than even Enyclcopedia Britannica's articles. They are often much more in depth. Obviously we want to be sure that readers can still understand the material, but there is no reason to restrict ourselves to cursory information anymore since "wikipedia is not paper". Moreover, if wikipedia wants to supplant these other reference sources, it has to be better - not just the same. Awadewit | talk  07:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Background" section does not prepare the reader for the biographical data - readers have come to the article for information about the novel, so the section needs to explain why it is giving biographical information rather than just dive right in.


 * The "Background" section is choppy and frequently does not explain to readers the reason the information is being offered. For example, details about Lee's family are offered, but not the explicit connections to the novel.
 * I have split the background section and moved the character inspiration portions below the plot summary.--Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is still a problem - there is extraneous information that is directly connected to the novel. Select only the most relevant information to the construction of the characters. Not all biographical data has to be retained. Remember, there is also Harper Lee. Awadewit | talk  05:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What parts of the Autobiographical elements section do you consider irrelevant? --Moni3 (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Much rewriting of the "Autobiographical elements" section needs to happen. The basic information is there, but it needs to be arranged in a more organized fashion and it needs to flow better. For example:
 * Choppy: Lee has said that the novel is not an autobiography, but rather that one "should write about what he knows and write truthfully."[7] Her father, Amasa Coleman Lee, was an attorney and editor and publisher of the Monroeville newspaper. - These two sentences don't flow together very well yet.
 * Not tied to novel: She had a brother, Edwin, four years her senior. A black housekeeper came once a day to take care of the house and family. Her mother was prone to a nervous condition and if not physically absent, was mentally and emotionally absent.
 * Choppy: Capote (who was known as Truman Persons then) served as the model for Dill. - No transition into next paragraph.
 * Information on Capote is not tied to novel.
 * First and fourth paragraphs deal with inspiration for main story line - why not integrate these paragraphs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awadewit (talk • contribs) 02:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest deleting the "Character" list, as it repeats much information from the "Plot summary" (it also makes the page resemble SparkNotes rather than an encyclopedia entry). Since there is a link to List of characters in To Kill a Mockingbird, that can be placed in the "Plot summary" section.
 * This has been removed, with the main|character list link still intact.--Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Themes" section is sourced to a bit of jumble of reviewers and scholars. The prose even reflects this. The beginning of the section and the subsection "Southern life through a child's eyes", for example, emphasize what reviewers thought about the novel. Might not reviewers' comments be better placed in a "Reception" section?
 * I think it bears pointing out that the themes of the novel have evolved since its publication. There were two repeated comments on the book by reviewers: it was a cute story about growing up in the South, and it was a plea for racial justice. Time giving critics some room to reflect, this helps to expand on further themes that may apply 50 years later (and more). If I need to make this clearer, I can, but the evolution of its reception has value, in my opinion. --Moni3 (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is an important point, but I think that it makes more sense in a "reception" section, as it demonstrates how the reception of the book has changed over time, if you see what I mean. I wouldn't delete the material, just frame it differently. Awadewit | talk  04:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The themes section has been significantly expanded with references to scholarly articles.--Moni3 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it is still largely framed in terms of reviewers - this is confusing for readers who do not really grasp the difference. Awadewit | talk  02:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The genre of the novel is not explained at all - a brief passing comment to bildungsroman and the Southern gothic, but no section.
 * I'm using other FA novels as guides here, not having written one already. There are no sections for genre in Uncle Tom's Cabin, Starship Troopers, The Well of Loneliness, or The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Is a section for genre necessary for FAC, or can you be more specific as to what is necessary? --Moni3 (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Uncle Tom's Cabin does discuss its genre (the sentimental novel) in its "Style" section. The Lord of the Rings should most definitely have a genre section, as it is largely credited with inventing the fantasy genre. I notice it does have an "influence on the fantasy genre" section. I would have to read the whole article to see if anything is missing. Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman and Mary: A Fiction both discuss genre as well.
 * Well, as you know - you wrote those two articles. And as The Lord of the Rings Trilogy includes a section on how it has affected the fantasy fiction genre, a discussion of its own genre isn't quite as in depth. As well, the style of Uncle Tom's Cabin is the section where genre is discussed, and the genre of TKaM is discussed in the Themes section. Lee, apparently did not think her novel was a Southern Gothic, and it is most probably worth it to discuss this, which I will, but I'm trying to understand what will exclude the article; what is an absolute, if such a thing exists in FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no absolutes in FA-land and we should always strive to write the best articles possible, no matter how far short others have fallen. :) A discussion of a novel should always include a discussion of its genre. This is simply good literary criticism. I don't have a problem with having a "Style" section which discusses the genre (I did this as well). It's just that now there is no real discussion of genre in the article. What Lee thinks about her book is interesting and worth including, but, of course, not the end of the matter. Awadewit | talk  22:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The aesthetic of the novel is also not addressed at all - this could be part of genre, but something needs to be said about the writing style.
 * Much more has been done with this now - nice work. However, explaining terms like bildungsroman and Southern Gothic for the reader is a must. Awadewit | talk  05:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Both genres have been expanded and defined. --Moni3 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they have, but you have used wisegeek.com as one of your sources, a clearly unreliable website when you look at their contributors. Also, the paragraph on genre should be clearly marked as such for ease of reading. The Southern Gothic paragraph right now is a bit of a jumble. You don't seem to be truly rewriting - you are just adding and moving around. This article needs to be redrafted in parts - that takes time. Awadewit | talk  02:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The article names a lot of lists the novel has appeared on - readers are overwhelmed. Explain the significance of these lists and pick a few select ones.
 * There are now four lists in the Reception section, and one in the Themes section (in Southern Gothic discussion, with an explanation). I think it shows the impact the book has had to have been included on multiple "Best of" lists. I think they should stay the way they are. --Moni3 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * When I read the first three paragraphs of "Reception", however, the statistics start to blend together. If you want to keep all of these stats, you have to find a way to make them distinct. Awadewit | talk  02:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are several paragraphs within "literary significance and criticism" that could be combined with material from "After publication" and material from "Themes" to make a much more coherent "Reception" section. Right now, that material is sprinkled throughout the article.
 * I have created a Reception portion and combined some paragraphs from "literary significance" with "after publication".--Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest moving the first three paragraph from "Literary significance" to "Reception" and moving "Reception" up before "Film adaptations". Awadewit | talk  05:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been done. --Moni3 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would still frame the "Reception" section using the material you have from actual critics, rather than using that material in the "Themes" section. It makes more sense, in my opinion. You would be tracking what is called the "reception history" of the book. Right now, I still can't quite follow the organizational structure of the article - it's better, but still not there. Awadewit | talk  02:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Does the Capote authorship faux-dispute deserve its own subsection? Surely not.
 * While I agree with not making an issue out of a non-issue, I came across the rumors repeatedly when researching the book, and as Capote's father was apparently spreading the rumors, they have become a part of the novel's lore. I felt it was worth it to address the rumors as false. That it got its own section is more an issue of organization in that section than a statement about how important the issue is. --Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. It just seemed like a lot of information was provided on something that is clearly untrue, if you know what I mean. Is there an undue weight problem here, I wonder? Perhaps paring the section down a bit...Oxford doesn't get this much credit in Shakespeare. :) Awadewit | talk  22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also balancing the suggestions of other editors, one of which was to expand the controversy section. The Capote rumor was at one point in the article a single sentence, and another editor commented that it wasn't detailed enough either to describe the rumor or dispel it. Instead, I hope to have unequivocally discounted it. (Shakespeare would also be all over the internet had he written within the past 50 years, and the object of his rumor was an outlandish, if charming, liar who played the talk show circuit constantly.) --Moni3 (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Atticus Finch stands as one of the most memorable models of a lawyer-hero, in direct contrast to the popular depiction of lawyers as unscrupulous and models of greed. As such, the book's impact on the legal profession cannot be underestimated. - statements like this bother me - they seem a bit too general
 * I have changed the wording in this section to be more specific, despite opinion Which it read better in its original format ;) --Moni3 (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "After publication" - This section seems unnecessary. The material about reception can be placed elsewhere and the biographical material belongs in the Harper Lee article.
 * See comment above. --Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would also a recommend a copy edit by someone unfamiliar with the article. I kept noticing sentences that had the most important elements at the end and other small errors of emphasis that someone who hasn't been poring over the article for weeks on end could easily fix.

This article has a lot of potential. I just don't think it is quite ready for FA yet. I hope these suggestions were helpful - I tried to be as detailed as possible. Awadewit | talk  05:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it...--Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Awadewit | talk  22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Awadewit. --Kaypoh (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what this means. Much of what Awadewit opposes has been changed. I added a section and restructured much more of it since the original opposition, and have had another editor tell me the changes were unnecessary. I need to know what to improve for this process. --Moni3 (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the editor withdraw the nomination for now. As research is ongoing, substantial reorganizing is taking place, and copy editing will have to take place, the article doesn't seem quite ready for FAC. Working on these changes in a less pressure-filled environment than FAC is often beneficial. Awadewit | talk  05:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I read your comment and will take it under advisement.--Moni3 (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * After advisement, the committee thought it more prudent to continue working on it while the committee has the time off of work to do so and the resources, and it doesn't feel like nominating it again. The committee urges a re-evaluation of the article, or in the immortal words of Atticus Finch, "I'll kick your ass!" (that was a joke, for people who can't read irony) --Moni3 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also endorse a withdrawal. I like the article and I think it's very important – so I'd be willing to donate some time to it. However, I really don't like peer-reviewing articles at FAC, so while I won't officially oppose here, I will second Awad's suggestion and leave my offer on the table if/when this process is closed. – Scartol  •  Tok  23:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's unfortunate on many levels. I asked for a peer review before it went to GA review, and didn't get a very satisfactory one: one response, with the suggestion that I find more sources, particularly from one I had cited five times. Even the GA reviewer didn't seem to be knowledgeable about what makes a GA novel. I asked three active members of WP:Novels on their talk pages to give it a peer review, including Awadewit, after it earned a GA, and got a very good set of suggestions - by Yllowsubmarine. I followed those, waited and pondered a bit, and nominated it here. I understand FAC is not the best place for a peer review, but what other process should I have followed? Your volunteering to assist suggests it's still not in the right state to pass as FA. What needs to be done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moni3 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would re-urge the editors to withdraw this nomination, particularly in light of Scartol's offer to help. Articles that are at the research stage should not be at FAC since research is the foundation of any good article. (By the way, what committee?) Awadewit | talk  01:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I wasn't part of the process before it reached FAC; I know how frustrating it is to get little or no support on the path (though you were lucky to cross paths with the mighty !). I do think the article is not in the right state to pass as an FA. It needs more images, the prose is clunky (in "Background", why does the bit about Huntington College interrupt a description of the writing process?), and I'd like to see the references cleaned up. (It's much neater to have a separate Bibliography list, with single-word citation references to it – see The Age of Reason. Also there's a single URL as a reference, which is yucky to mine eyes.) These are quick observations based on a cursory read-through; I'm sure I'll find more things to complain about in a more detailed review. I do think this article is close, and I very much want to see it featured; but in my opinion it's not there yet. – Scartol  •  Tok  01:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset)Reply to Scartol: Images - I perused other FA novels. There are nine total and three of those published within the past 50 years. Starship Troopers has 2 images, and right now TKaM has three. The majority of the other images for the other two modern fiction books are book covers. Can I include multiple book covers? I already included several screenshots of the movie, but another editor removed them. Die Another Day includes movie screenshots, but that's a GA. There are beautiful shots of Lee with her father at Getty Images. I've written to them to ask if I could use it and they did not respond. --Moni3 (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

References - So I can clean up the references and make them the way you like them. I just need to find the page numbers, which will take me only a couple hours. I've already started that. That single URL was actually a .php in an otherwise clean reference. The php references don't like to word wrap in a cite web format (or any other format, it seems). --Moni3 (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"Clunky" will not do, in any way. I included a segue for the paragraph in question. --Moni3 (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Awadewit - I am the committee. It makes me feel more important to attend meetings. --Moni3 (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply to both - I have read your points, and I do understand them. I do not wish to be a pain in the ass, but here is where I have gotten the most feedback on this article. I think I'd rather make out with a clown than de-nominate this article, and I hate clowns. I've read a lot on this book. I mean - a lot. In another way, I wish to big a rather big pain in the ass, being the automath I am, in light of the fact that all 9 FA novels are so dissimilar and this process is quite subjective, and at times apparently whimsical. I use the other 9 FA novels as guides, but they are all so unique, and there is much to this book that sets it apart and incomparable to the other 9. To my mind, the structure of the article fits the information available for the novel. It seems to me what I must do is find what each of you wants to see personally. I will do it if told. --Moni3 (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Try to understand my reluctance here - you are claiming that you have read "a lot" on this book yet just a few days ago you did not know what the MLA database was - the most important database for searching for sources on literary topics. This is in no way your fault, but it does bring into question whether or not you really have read "a lot" or done enough research. I applaud your efforts to immediately begin researching in this new database, but as an active researcher myself I am skeptical of anyone's ability to absorb so much information and decide on its relevance so quickly.


 * Second, I would suggest that you stop trying to compare this article to other FAs. You are correct that they are dissimilar - there is little to be gained, in my opinion, in poring over FAs and trying to make this one "match". You need to think very carefully about how to make this article the best it can possibly be. You seem to be trying to do this - perhaps articulating for us why you have the sections you do and in that order would help us understand your conception of the article?


 * I share your concerns that FAC can be arbitrary and subjective (I've had people oppose FACs I brought based on national varieties of English and on dashes in the footnotes), but I am rather surprised that you would consider such basic considerations as genre and style (topics I asked you to add) as something so subjective. These are fundamental topics when discussing literature and form the foundation of any "introduction to literature" class, for example. One of the first questions one asks of a text when one begins to analyze it is: what is its genre? (novel, poem, short story, etc.) That is why discussing genre, for example, is so crucial. Awadewit | talk  07:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My final reply here: I'm not sure why it's a problem to withdraw the FAC. and I withdrew the nom for Yasser Arafat because I wanted to do a more extensive peer review, and after some retooling it went on to become an FA. I think the same process would make sense here. I shan't reply to the specific items you mentioned, Moni, because I really don't like doing reviews at FAC. –  Scartol  •  Tok  14:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I cannot keep re-reading this article everyday. I am confident that I have provided more than enough direction for the editor as well as more than enough explanation for my "oppose". These changes cannot be made quickly - they require time because they require redrafting. Awadewit | talk  02:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If I have not seemed appreciative, that is my fault. I thank you very much for what pointers you have been able to give the article. I continue to work on it. --Moni3 (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Object. Missing citations: not a single one in the 'Plot summary' section (who's to say it's not a hoax?); and a few other odd unreferenced claims throughout the article (ex. Brock Peters also attended the affair, just months before his own death).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that the plot summary needs no citations unless there are quotes directly from the book. As for the issue regarding the reference to Brock Peters, this is a question about style: the reference for that statement is the sentence directly preceding that. If, say, I have three sentences back to back that can be attributed to one source, and one is a quote, must there be a reference for each sentence? That would seem to pack the article with references to the point of distraction. --Moni3 (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not this is the correct policy, it would indeed seem that plot summaries are not sourced. I think this is because they are supposed to be straightforward descriptions that are not controversial claims. (I have a lot to say about plot summaries, but this is not the place.) Awadewit | talk  02:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on here, but this nomination was never submitted to WP:FAC, so I'm archiving it now. If a FAC is the intent, the nomination needs to be submitted to WP:FAC. I'm curious at how people are coming to this FAC since it's not at FAC. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ah, now I see it was removed by the nominator without being archived, so I shall have to botify and close the previous FAC manually. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.