Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yogo sapphire/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 promoted by GrahamColm 05:09, 20 June 2012.

Yogo sapphire

 * Nominator(s): PumpkinSky (talk) and Montanabw (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it's ready and many have helped; a hearty thank you to Montanabw as co-nom extensive help since the very beginning, Vsmith for professional geological input, Jesse V. for a great GA review, and two formal Peer Reviews; extensive pre-FAC input from Wehwalt and Nikkimaria; and too many others I can't thank enough. This is a unique article on a gemstone found only in one location in the world. Pumpkin Sky  talk  00:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC) "This is a unique article on a precious gemstone

Support and Image check I had a part in the peer review, and my concerns were answered at that time.

Regarding images: Most are uploads by the photographers, especially the gemstones (pretty). However,
 * This one needs evidence of pre-1923 publication


 * So does this


 * this too

On this, I don't think fair use works, but the brooch, as a item of adornment, may not be under copyright. I think the uploader can probably change it to a CC license of his choice, but someone else should probably doublecheck this one.
 * this as well

Good work.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. According to Licensing, an anon work over 95 years old is PD. This would clearly make the Ringold and Hoover photos PD, AFAIK and possibly the other two. As for the FU photo, I've notified the uploader so he can respond here. Pumpkin Sky   talk  15:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I just went by the tags, which claim pre-1923 publication. We'll work it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Clarification: Anonymous photos published before 1923 are always in the public domain. Anonymous unpublished photos are only in the public domain if they were taken before 1892, as later unpublished photos are copyrighted. Unpublished here means that the photo hasn't been published anywhere before 2003 as any later publications do not affect anything. Anonymous photos first published between 1923 and the end of February 1989 are sometimes in the public domain (requires more information about the publication). Anonymous photos first published between 1 March 1989 and the end of 2002 are never in the public domain unless the photo was published without permission from the copyright holder (in which case it doesn't count as "publication"). All photos appear to have been taken after 1891, so they are only in the public domain if they have been published somewhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wehwalt's assessment, and I personally do not feel that a non-free use rationale is required for the image in question. However, it is currently tagged as both public domain and non-free, which is something of a nightmare- there can't really be any middle ground. Every image is, for our purposes, only one of "free" and "non-free". The old images, if they are public domain because they have been published, require evidence of publication- if they are public domain for some other reason, they require a change of copyright tags. J Milburn (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See User_talk:Tim1965 where Nikkimaria and Tim1965 say an image can have two licenses and I said I didn't get it then either. People smarter than me on images need to resolve this. Are you saying it's PD? Pumpkin Sky  talk  18:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My reasoning for the double licensing on Conchita was that as a 3D work, the copyright on both the photo and the work itself needed to be accounted for - the PD tag is from the photographer, while the FUR is for the work. If the work is not actually under copyright (I'm not sure), so much the better. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: One file has been proposed for deletion, see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:JakeHoover1894.png. It would really be necessary to find an early publication of the other files discussed above. If they haven't been published until recently, they are still copyrighted. I can't tell if they are private photos (which are unlikely to be published soon after taking them) or press photos (which are likely to be published soon after taking them) or some other kind of photos. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Photo update--I've deleted the four old photos that may or may not have been published prior to 1923 and replaced them with some photos published by the US Geological Survey in 1900 (currently they are all in ref 5), definitely PD1923 and probably PD-USGov-USGS. This leaves the Conchita butterly photo license tag, which I need help with. Uploader was notified yesterday. Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Has anyone looked at the Talk page for the Conchita Butterfly image? There was discussion there about what copyright license to use on this image. Jewelry is copyrightable, and it is not clear to me that the idea "butterfly" is inseparable from the particular butterfly created by Crevoshay and Kane. I think we have to presume copyright of the Conchita Butterfly until proven otherwise (e.g., a denial of copyright from the two authors of the work). This would then require a fair use license by Wikipedia's part, which has been asserted by me in the image licensure documentation. Perhaps I am wrong, but an expert opinion would be useful here.  (As they used to say, "I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV.") - Tim1965 (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that an expert opinion would be helpful. While I accept that there can be multiple copyrights acting upon an image, I'm saying that, for our purposes, an image must either be completely free, or treated as completely non-free. Tagging it as free and non-free is something of a nightmare, and a practice I really think needs to be done away with. I certainly accept that a piece of jewellery can be copyrighted, but I'm not sure that a cut gemstone could be, and that seems to be what this picture is showing. J Milburn (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We have had previous FA articles pass with a couple of fair use images; I don't think FA requires "completely" one way or the other, so long as justifiable; here we have a known wikipedian who shot a detail of the piece showing the second most famous cut Yogo in the world (the most famous is probably the Tiffany Iris Brooch, and though the creator is deceased, we have no way to get a free image of it unless someone can find it in the museum in Baltimore...). So somehow this image has to be "kosher," however we get there.  Nikki, any thoughts?  Montanabw (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've asked here: Media_copyright_questions for help. Pumpkin Sky  talk  19:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As the author of the photograph, I'm completely willing to apply whatever license is appropriate (insofar as my photograph is concerned). I myself have no desire to retain any copyright interest in the image itself, so if my license needs to change to bring it in line with the jewelry's copyright status--by all means, I will change it. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Wehwalt and J.Milburn it may well be that the FU can be removed and the photo is in fact PD. Also note no one has responded to my post at the media copyright page. Pumpkin Sky   talk  14:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Conchita Butterfly update, see User_talk:Tim1965 and Village_pump/Copyright, in which the Conchita Butterfly image was determined to be free by a very knowledgeable expert at Commons. Tim1965 made a slightly cropped version and I put it in the article as well as a free sketch of the Tiffany Iris Brooch MTBW found. Pumpkin Sky   talk


 * Comments by MONGO:
 * Check MOS here for image placement. I sorted a few out, but the History section is pretty crowded and all the images seem to be relevent to the section.--MONGO 02:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was watching that while you were doing it. I understand. I just moved two in history for now. We may need to relook after licensing is sorted out. Pumpkin Sky   talk  02:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Toolserver peer review says the article is missing a few non-breaking stops &amp;nbsp; but I only saw one as an embedded note (1 mm)--MONGO 03:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed that one. I also fixed some whitespace with a script. Pumpkin Sky  talk  10:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Will endorse for FA if and when image issues are cleaned up.--MONGO 17:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support...image issues have been addressed. It was a pity to lose some images, but they have been replaced with some others that are suitable. I read through the article over this past weekend and though it is written in different stylistic manner than I might have followed, the prose is tight and well referenced. I see no MOS issues, reflinks checks out and this article now meets FA criteria. Nice job!--MONGO 00:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Source review
 * FN31: how does this source meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
 * It supplements a source showing the different colors of gemstones with a photo, May not be needed but is a good visual. Further comment?


 * FN57: painting title should be italicized
 * Why provide province for Vancouver and not Toronto? Those are of about equivalent recognizability IMO, so either include it for both or neither. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * FN31-Vsmith, who has an MS in geology, told me it was "quite good" and usable, so I've asked him to elaborate; Gemstones-Guide is a CIRCA site and CIRCA is a worldwide dealer in gemstones, they are very knowledgeable in the gem field; FN57 fixed; ON added to Toronto. FYI, what I'm trying to back up is a known scientific fact--that chromium cause corundum w/o other traces to be red or pink and with blue sapphires they result in purple (blue+red=purple), there's no outlandish claim being supported here, just plain basic science. The Royal Society of Chemistry clearly states Cr makes corundum red (ruby), others clearly state Fe+Ti makes blue sapphire, and the two sources listed are the best ones that state Cr in Yogos makes them purple. Shall I add the RSC ref? Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Gauthier thesis is the result of a detailed study of the deposit. The chemistry/color connection it is used for seems non-controversial. As a scientific study it would seem more reliable than a gemstone website. I haven't found references to it, so I guess it fails one criterion in WP:scholarship. It is used only for linking purple to chromium and the existence of rubies in the area. Neither of the two facts seem critical to the article, although interesting. Vsmith (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not critical, but useful, the point is there are few Yogos that are anything but blue, something not true of other Montana sapphire deposits, where boring and yellow are common.  Montanabw (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Note on spotchecking - I performed an in-depth spotcheck of this article just over a month ago, and all issues found at that time were addressed. However, I did not (and do not) have access to two significant sources (Voynick 1985 and Kane 2003), and there have of course been changes since then, so it's to delegate discretion whether a spotcheck is needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Both VSmith and PSKY own copies of Voynick and can triple check.  Montanabw (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments - as someone interested in Rocky Mountain minerals and who likes sapphires a lot, I've always thought this was an interesting article since first editing it last January. I've only read about half-way through and will leave comments as I go - most are nitpicks. Also, I've made a few copyedits but feel free to revert.
 * Lead
 * I think the lead is a bit long and maybe could be tightened up a bit, example here: "This became the highly profitable "English Mine" which flourished from 1899 until the late 1920s and, under a series of changing owners and names, periodically operated into the early 21st century." > can be tightened a bit
 * Leads in FA generally have 3-4 paragraphs, so this is witin the norm. Changed the dates mentioned to circa 1900-1920s and cut some text. Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * " ultimately bought out by the syndicate" > rem "ultimately"
 * Done. Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Although Intergem ultimately went out of business," > rem "ultimately"
 * Done. Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * organization > suggest keeping the mining companies together in one paragraph & trim back a bit re Intergem
 * Have to respectfully disagree on Intergem here. They are a key player in Yogo history. On the pargraphing, can you be more specific? Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Para two ends w/ the Vortex mine in the 1980s, para 3 switches topics Montana sapphires, and para 4 switches back to the mining operations, introducing, again in the 1980s, Intergem. For better flow, I'd suggest switching the paragraphs around so that the mining operations aren't separated by a different topic. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, the problem here is that others, prior to FAC, have asked for it in chronlogical sequence. If it is put in company sequence, the time would be out of sync. IMHO it's better in time sequence and so far more have asked for it in chronological sequence (talk page, GAC, etc). Is it okay to leave this way? Pumpkin Sky   talk  00:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto what PSKY said. We need to keep it as is.  (Room to tweak the Montana state gem bit, though.  I moved it elsewhere)  I tried doing it chronologically; I tried it mine-by-mine.  But by the mine is even more confusing.  Consensus of editors was to stick to the chronology as much as possible, and NOT go mine-by-mine except where completely unavoidable.  Open to ideas for making it flow better within that structure, though.  Montanabw (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Location
 * "The westernmost end of the Yogo dike occurs just west of Yogo Creek, about 3 miles (4.8 km) north of Yogo Creek's confluence with the Middle Fork of the Judith River; from that point it runs east-northeast (ENE) and ends about 0.5 miles (0.80 km) before reaching the Judith River.[9]" Hard to follow sentence > can this be simplified?
 * Good question. I have not thought of something here. Maybe I will later or someone else can. Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll tweak. See if that helps.  Montanabw (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mineralogy
 * "Corundum is one of the hardest minerals, rating 9 on the Mohs scale.[15][16]" > why two citations? (just curious ...)
 * Doesn't hurt ;-) Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:OVERCITE to cut down on the blue in the page. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Pumpkin Sky   talk  00:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Yogos present an advantage to gemcutters:[21] since they are found as primary constituent minerals within an igneous bedrock rather than in sedimentary alluvial deposits where most other sapphires are located,[5][19] they retain a perfect or near perfect crystalline shape, making cutting much easier, as does their lack of inclusions, color zoning, or cloudiness.[21]" > Have you considered bundling the citations at the end of the sentence instead of breaking up the sentence w/ cites?
 * Had it that way at one point and someone complained the refs weren't near what they supported. IMHO better to leave as is Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "The United States Geological Survey and many gem experts have stated that Yogos are "among the world's finest sapphires."[26][27][28] > Which of the three sources has the direct quote?
 * 26 does. 27 is one word different, 28 is slightly different. Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's in quotation marks, it should be exact according to a single source. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Pumpkin Sky   talk  00:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because of the rarity of large rough Yogo sapphires, gem prices begin rising sharply when they are over 0.5 carats (0.10 g), and skyrocket when they are over 1 carat (0.20 g).[22][25][29] > clarify? gem prices in general or the price of a gem quality Yogo?
 * Done. Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "A very small number of rubies have been found at Yogo Gulch.[31]" > this seems off-topic. Is a ruby simply a sapphire of another color?
 * Strictly due to historical development, ruby and sapphires are all corundum. But when corundum is red, it's called a ruby, all other colors are called sapphires, so in a way a ruby is a sapphire of another color. Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarify that Kashimir is in the Himalayas, probably in parenthesis, only because it's a big jump (literally) from Montana
 * Done. Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to be fussy, but I undid that one, with the other clarifications, it isn't needed, and the wikilink makes clear where Kashmir is. Parentheticals aren't ideal form and best to avoid when possible. I'll tweak the text to prep the reader.  PSKY, the source doesn't clarify the precise location (India or Pakistan), does it?   Montanabw (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It just says Kashmir. Pumpkin Sky  talk  22:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so link is to region, that is what we need.  Montanabw (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Alluvial sapphires are found in the Orient" > Asia?
 * Done. Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "The host rock for the sapphires, the Yogo dike, is a dark gray to green porphyritic lamprophyre consisting of clinopyroxene and phlogopite phenocrysts set in a matrix of clinopyroxene, titanian magnetite, apatite, chlorite, serpentine and calcite. The phlogopite composition suggests a 900 °C (1,650 °F) crystallization temperature. Xenoliths of limestone, clastic sedimentary rocks, and gneiss are present. In some locations, due to the abundance of xenoliths, the dike has the appearance of a limestone breccia in an igneous matrix.[33]" > Difficult to read here because of the jargon. Can it be simplified or some of it go to a note?
 * I ask Vsmith, who has a MS in Geology, to work this.He's done most of this section and it's too technical for me. Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Reworded a bit, rather difficult to retain the meaning w/out technical terms (which are linked for those interested). Vsmith (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, I understand it better now.  Montanabw (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll get back to this. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks everyone for your help so far, hopefully VSmith and Tim1965 can take a peek at the stuff only they know how to fix. PSKY did you drop each of them a heads up on this? The tightening up that has occurred has been quite helpful. I'm bummed to lost Millie Ringwold, but maybe we can fix that license and get it back in. Montanabw (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Recent erosion in the area removed the overlying shales and again exposed the limestone to groundwater action which again produced collapse breccias which include fragments of the dike rock. He determined that the erosion of the dike in the current erosion cycle was minimal. > repetition of again, again
 * Done. Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Misc:
 * "Corundum was also found at Dry Cottonwood Creek near Butte in 1889, Rock Creek near Philipsburg in 1892, and Quartz Gulch near Bozeman in 1894.[34][19][44]"> minor point, but citations should be in numerical order; I've noticed a number of these.
 * They've been in sync many times, copy editing jiggles this. This one fixed, looking for others. Pumpkin Sky   talk  01:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments from Crisco 1492
 * Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk


 * Support Looks good to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment from Gerda Arendt
 * I had some small concerns that were fixed or I fixed myself. I wonder if the state gem fact could be repeated as a concluding paragraph, possibly with details how it happened? It seems a bit lost in the chronological sequence, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not in chronology, it's in Montana sapphires. All sapphires from Montana are the state gem, not just Yogo and not just the ones from elsewhere. There's essentially nothing on how sapphire and agate became the state gem, just why, which is already in the article. Pumpkin Sky  talk  11:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And it occurred in 1969, so quite a while back.  Montanabw (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, minor concerns all addressed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments: Supported below Starting a read through, look like it's in pretty good shape thus far.
 * "The cornflower blue color" Should this be hyphenated?
 * No. Hyphens discouraged in this context.  --MTBW


 * "Montana sapphires in general come in a variety of colors, but Yogos are almost always blue. About two percent of Yogos are purple, rather than blue." I'm not sure "rather than blue" is needed here, since we were told they're almost always blue in the previous sentence. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed and done Montanabw (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Could the first section of "History" be tightened up at all? The middle two paragraphs seem to wander a bit.
 * Will peek at it --MTBW Follow up: Tightened, moved last sentence to start, consolidated paragraphs and chopped a little (after consulting sources) --MTBW


 * "One story credits a local school teacher for recognizing the blue pebbles as sapphires.[59] A variation is that the schoolteacher lived in Maine" Is this a typo? "school teacher" vs "schoolteacher".
 * According to Webster's dictionary, it's one word. Fixed. Pumpkin Sky  talk  20:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Except Google has 103 million hits for "school teacher" vs 4 million hits for "schoolteacher," and I was one, so let's keep it two words (grin) --MTBW
 * Except that you need to put the phrase in quotes if you want the two words together. Searching for ""school teacher"" and "school teacher" are quite different. But you're right, since in quotes "school teacher" returns 33.3 million results, and "schoolteacher" is 4 million. Jesse V. (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Consider adding modern equivalents to historical dollar figures, it's not required (I don't think it is, anyway), but might be interesting.
 * If there's a template for this, I don't know how to use it. Pumpkin Sky  talk  20:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here it is for $86,151 dollars in 1957. (approximately $0 as of 2024) Where all should we plop it in? --MTBW Follow up:  I put it into the earliest figures, figured after 1929, it would be overkill, but now that y'all have the template, do as you see fit.  --MTBW

Mark Arsten (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Some inconsistency in "Early mining": " The vein turned out to be five miles long" vs "This site was 5 miles (8.0 km) from Yogo City"
 * Fixed, used convert template for both. Pumpkin Sky  talk  21:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "The sale was finally completed for $65,000 cash and some stock considerations, because the company's capital was exhausted" Is the comma needed here?
 * No. Done. Jesse V. (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the second paragraph of "1940s–1970s" you use actually or actual a couple times, is there a better way of saying this?
 * Done--MTBW


 * "By 1980, only four American owners had been successful at Yogo Gulch, all early in its mining history.[77] The English syndicate had been the most successful of any venture, and even its success was short-lived." You have "success" three times in two sentences here, might want to try for some more variation.
 * Fixed --MTBW


 * "At least thirteen American-owned Yogo mining efforts" should this be 13? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WP:NUMERAL, they can be written out, so it's fine. Jesse V. (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "This issue appeared as a front-page story in The Wall Street Journal on August 29, 1984." I'd consider removing this sentence.
 * Done, left refs. Pumpkin Sky   talk  18:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Simultaneously, their collateral with Citibank, which was their gem inventory, declined because the value of their collateral was declining;" This reads a little awkwardly to me.
 * Tweaked. Pumpkin Sky  talk  18:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Citibank also had obtained a large stock of Yogos, reputedly worth $3.5 million" 3.5 million in which year's dollars?
 * Intergem collapsed in 1985, so I used that year as they talk about time of collapse in the ref, added new ref page too Pumpkin Sky   talk  19:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "had a mining lease with Roncor in 2000 and 2001 but ran out of funds and their option expired." I take it the funds ran out in 2001?
 * From the way the ref is worded, 2001 or shortly thereafter. Pumpkin Sky   talk  19:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Robert Kane of Fine Gems International in Helena, which today has the largest selection of Montana sapphires in the world" I'd remove "today" here.
 * Done. Pumpkin Sky  talk  18:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "There is no doubt many Yogos were also sold in Europe" I'd remove "there is no doubt"
 * Done. Pumpkin Sky  talk
 * Alright, sorry for the delay, but I've finished the article. Looks like it is in good shape. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Alright, I'm satisfied with the fixes and am now ready to support. The article is well written/organized, compliant with the MOS, so support on 1a, 2a, and 2b. (I don't know much about gemology or mining, so there's little I can comment on there). Mark Arsten (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Looks like a fully-fledged encyclopedic article to me. Well done! Jesse V. (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.