Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jefferson Davis/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC).

Jefferson Davis

 * Notified: Omnedon, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject U.S. Congress, WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, WikiProject Kentucky, WikiProject Mississippi, talk page notice 2022-09-24

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been noticed for about a month with no changes. The sourcing has quite a bit of problems listed here. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * From the bibliography, I have Davis 1996, Foner 1988, McPherson 1989, and Woodworth 1990. I can help push this over the line if somebody's going to take over, but I don't have the time, energy, or desire to do the massive resourcing that this will take. Hog Farm Talk 13:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Lost Cause propaganda whispers regularly throughout the text. I believe it would require a full rewrite to replace the psudohistory with the current scholarly consensus. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: notified me on this matter. Once I have finished with Bolívar Quest, I will commit to a full rewrite of this article in the sandbox I'm currently using for Bolívar. Fittingly and somewhat ironically, I was thinking John Brown (abolitionist) for my next big project. – ♠Vamí  _IV†♠  21:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * If wants to take this on, I think that would work great. But, I'm wrapping up work on trying to keep Andrew Jackson out of the depths of FAR. If I'm successful, I'm willing to explore the life of Jefferson Davis, as his legacy is quite topical. It's not where I would've planned to have wandered, but it looks worthwhile and Jackson has already taken me into the former Choctaw lands of Mississippi anyway, so I feel like I'm visiting the neighborhood anyway. The sources  mentioned are available on archive, and I think there are a lot of other supportive resources I can use. If I did take it on though, I think the second half of the article from "strategic failures" on would require a major overhaul. My preference would be to discuss his legacy in terms of the controversial issues: At first glance these look like: Role in Confederate defeat, attitudes toward slavery, post-war reputation (e.g., lost cause and the like). I suspect any work I did would be extensive enough that I'd need copy editing help when I'm done, and a couple of committed folk to give it a mini-FA-like look over. If it is best to leave it to another editor who feels more expert, I'm good with that. Thoughts? (I'll ping  too.) Wtfiv (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly busy and am slowly working on a project in my sandbox to fix up Siege of Vicksburg, but I can help. We also need to factor in length concerns - prosesize tool is showing over 11,000 words, and the legacy needs more (and better) material.  IMO the best places to cut fat are the death and burial section, the author section, and the gigantic mess of excess detail of all of court cases regarding him getting Brierfield back.  We'll need more general biographies than just William C. Davis, but if there's going to be a push I can try to collect a few more together once I'm done with Vicksburg. Hog Farm Talk 02:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that quick response! I'll wait to see how others weigh in, but it sounds like it'd be a worthwhile adventure just to get the opportunity to work with you. I've seen your style indirectly, and I admire it, but it would be very interesting to get a more direct sense of it. I think this is one of those articles where there is a chance of reaching SandyGeorgia's ideal of 9000 words or so. The article seemed filled with unneeded detail, and starts only at 11,000 words, so I think the odds are good. As to sources, I'm suspecting we'll be able to get plenty. (Though its possible I'd be wrong.) Wtfiv (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I won't be able to do a whole lot until after Thanksgiving - I'm traveling that week, and I'll be taking the third part of the CPA exam hopefully before then. I should have plenty of time after then, though. Hog Farm Talk 03:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Send me a bibliography and, let the record show, I can do some great things. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  04:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like Vami IV is on it! I'll be here if there's any need to pick up momentum later, just ping me, but it sounds like its in good hands! Wtfiv (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Wtfiv/Vami IV: I am not in a rush. Take your time. We can come back to this in December, since I am getting married in November and will be away for most of the month. -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 09:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If I'm understanding right, it sounds like you all have big projects right now, both life and wikiwise. (Hogfarm on finishing up the CPA; and Guerillo, marriage is a huge project, no matter what the context. To both of you congratulations!)
 * I've got a little more time right now- though November may be more touch and go- so I can pitch in for now while you are taking care of the other issues, just starting on the citation sourcing the biography. If the narrative is already complete, it shouldn't be too difficult. That'll help build a bibliography for Vami's use when he's ready. Once someone else is ready to take over ping me on the talk page. Conversely, if I see major changes to be made I'll ping on the talk page as well. Wtfiv (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Work is ongoing on the legacy section; the rest has been largely rewritten. Hog Farm Talk 06:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I'm pretty much done adding content. I got done the first draft of legacy and am now just cleaning it up, but I think I'm feeling like I'm done with content at this point. I'm willing to to do whatever else is needed. Wtfiv (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As nominator, what are your thoughts? Is it set?  Does it need "next steps"? Here is my summary of how I've attempted to addresss the  issues listed here.
 * After I addressed them, I reworked the lead, mainly the last paragraph, to reflect the changes.
 * Family background: section rewritten. Removed much of the geneology, which was unclear.
 * Childhood: section rewritten and sourced.
 * Sourcing' is old and relies on Jim Crow era Southern Universities: have been brought up to date.(~45% of sources 21st century; ~40% 2000-1970; 15% earlier, not counting original sources.) Only two books are from Jim Crow era Southern Universities, Owsley's (1959) study on king cotton and Sulzby's (1960) book on Alabama Hotels.
 * Allen 1999 has a lost cause problem: Allen's biography is indeed quite different from the rest. Not used and has been moved to the "Bibliography" spin-off article.
 * Coulter's work has similar problems: Coulter is no longer used as a source.
 * Dodd 1907 is probably superseded by later work: Dodd has been moved to the "Bibliography" spin-off article.
 * Eaton 1977 was described as "admiring" by reviewers: Kept Eaton as third perspective in biography, but used less frequently. (For biographies: Cooper 2000 is ~107 times; Davis 1991 ~77; Eaton 1977 ~36). Eaton is sympathetic to Davis, but can be critical. His sourcing seems good, and sometimes he does a better summary than Cooper or Davis.
 * Patrick 1944's from 1945 makes me skeptical: Patrick has been moved to "Bibiography" spin-off.
 * Strode's three part biography is neo-Confederate hogwash and should be nowhere near a serious article about Davis: Strode's volumes have been move to the "Bibliography" spin-off.
 * The legacy section is choppy and glosses over the scholarly consensus on Davis. Further, without any criticism, it verges on being pro-Lost Cause: Legacy has been entirely rewritten. There are new sections at the end.
 * "Political views on slavery" summarizes Davis's views on slavery. The description of each is supported by academic secondary sources, and each one is accompanied by an accessible link to one of Davis's speeches so readers can verify for themselves whether the summary is correct. (Throughout the article, I reference Jefferson's public works. The summaries are based on secondary sources, but the original sources allow readers to determine for themselves if the summaries are accurate.)
 * "Performance as commander in chief" addresses the evaluation of his leadership by historians. It also separates the evaluation from the Civil War narrative. The article originally seemed to be emphasizing Pollard's points in the early "Lost Cause" mythology, embedding the evaluations of Davis in the narrative and implying that his actions lost the War. The section addresses the negative evaluations, the mixed evalutions, and even the relatively positive ones.
 * "Legacy" addresses the evolution of Davis's image into a lost cause hero and the controversies sparked by the symbolism of his image in the 21st century.
 * Citation style is inconsistent: Style is now sfn and sfnm (I like citing multiple authors when each describes the same point or facts from a slightly different perspective).
 * Wtfiv (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Wtfiv: You did an extraordinary job! My objections have been quenched and I am ready to move to retain the article as an FA. Thank you for working on this. Having a balanced article on David goes a long way to improve our coverage of the American Civil War. --  In actu (Guerillero)  Parlez Moi 12:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll try to read through it again this week. Hog Farm Talk 15:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I've reviewed on talk. Once the last few straggling comments are worked through, I'll be comfortable with the content here and I am comfortable with the sourcing used. It's a bit longer than ideal, but I'm too much of a nerd in this topic area to be good at suggesting things to pare down; I routinely read 500-600 page books on the Civil War for fun. Hog Farm Talk 00:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you Hog Farm. I appreciate your review. The care for Civil War articles is clear, as is your patience for editors who may be less expert. I think the issues you mentioned have now been addressed. And, I'm glad you are okay with the content. Wtfiv (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll make it clearer that I'm ready to close without FARC as well. The length isn't ideal, though, but I'm not sure what the best way to fix that would be. Hog Farm Talk 16:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My concerns have all been addressed here. Thanks for you hard work on this, Wtfiv. Hog Farm Talk 19:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I read through the article and, after some minor copyediting, I think this is ready for a keep. Z1720 (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

SG review  I am going to stop for now, as there are still copyedit needs. Also, as an example of how to cut down the excessive prose size, I offer this overly detailed paragraph: The paragraph is a sample of wordiness that can be trimmed, and I suggest checking throughout for similar. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There are inconsistent p and pp throughout the citations (too many for me to fix), eg Davis 1991, pp. 4–5 but Cooper 2000, p. 12–14, and  Cooper 2000, pp. 23–24 but Davis 1991, p. 23–24.
 * p converted to pp. part 1 part 2    part 3
 * Jeff in Petticoats is an odd external link; if it's notable, why not it's own article?
 * I'm inclined to consider this EL useless, so I've removed it. There were many songs about Davis in the 19th century, no point to single out one. Hog Farm Talk 20:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The "Senator and Secretary of War" section (a level two heading) begins with: Davis took his seat in December and was appointed as a regent of the Smithsonian Institution. Readers selecting to skip down to read a section should not have to backtrack to guess which year and which seat.
 * year added
 * There are about 20 instances of the word also which should be reviewed for almost-always-redundant redundancy.
 * 12 deleted Wtfiv (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For an 11,000 word article, it is unclear why this bit of what seems to be trivia makes it in to the lead: Only two survived him, and only one married and had children. (Perhaps this will be revealed as I read?)
 * Removed; I was unsure about the inclusion of this in the lead when I did my read-through. Hog Farm Talk 20:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:SEASON: In spring, Taylor had him assigned ...
 * Followed source, changed as per MOS:SEASON Wtfiv (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to know the final parts of this sentence? Davis gradually improved, and briefly traveled to Havana, Cuba, to restore his health and returned home via New York and Washington, D.C., where he visited his old schoolmate from Transylvania College, George Wallace Jones.[43]
 * Removed Wtfiv (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What does it refer back to ? He made his first slave, James Pemberton, its overseer,
 * "It" here is Briarfield.  - I have a greater concern here.  I checked my print copy of Davis, and he refers to Montgomery as "virtually overseer", not that Davis appointed him as one.  Because a black man as a plantation overseer would have been very odd for that time, I think it's best to reword this. Hog Farm Talk 20:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * updated. Wtfiv (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Pemberton's role as overseer is ambiguous: Cooper 2008, p. 128 states Davis decide to leave his lsave overwee, James Pemberton, in charge. I'll stay with Davis and added "effective" Wtfiv (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Advocating ... advocated ... vary wording ... advocating for the nomination of John C. Calhoun over Martin Van Buren who was the party's original choice. Davis preferred Calhoun because he advocated for southern interests
 * concern addressed? Wtfiv (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Vacancy ... vacated ... vary wording ... appointment by Mississippi governor Albert G. Brown to fill a vacancy in the U.S. Senate,[82] which had been vacated by the death
 * concern addressed? Wtfiv (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Before his resignation, Davis had sent a telegraph message to Mississippi Governor John J. Pettus informing him that he was available to serve the state. On January 27, 1861, Pettus appointed him a major general of Mississippi's army.[137] On February 10, Davis learned that he had been unanimously elected to the provisional presidency of the Confederacy by a constitutional convention in Montgomery, Alabama,[138] which consisted of delegates from the six states that had seceded: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Alabama.[139] Davis was chosen because of his political prominence,[140] his military reputation,[141] and his moderate approach to secession,[140] which could bring Unionists and undecided voters over to his side.[142] Davis had been hoping for a military command,[143] but he accepted and committed himself fully to his new role.[144] Davis and Vice President Alexander H. Stephens were inaugurated on February 18.[145] The procession for the inauguration started at Montgomery's Exchange Hotel, the location of the Confederate administration and Davis's residence.[146]
 * I think style issues may have to be addressed by another editor. Please see note on talk page.Wtfiv (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Confederate Congress ?? Clarify here ? In his opening address to Congress on January 12, ... no Wikilink? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * wikilink to first mention added
 * Opportunities to cut down the excessive wordiness are easy to find. Do we really need, " He began writing his memoirs almost immediately"? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * removed Wtfiv (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do we need the final clause here? Southern Historical Society has a link for exploring what it is. I suggest there are opportunities for trimming the prose throughout. In the 1870s, Davis was invited to become a member of the Southern Historical Society, an organization founded by Reverend J. William Jones with the former Confederate general Jubal A. Early as its president. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Clause deleted
 * A wikilink review should also be conducted, as I found confederate congress and 1860 election unlinked. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * NOT Addressed. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This article can easily be cut to under 10,000 words of readable prose. There is excess detail on the history of the Civil War everywhere one looks, and as but one sample, trimming off-topic detail from this one sample para cuts it almost in half. Hurricane Plantation (which belonged to Jefferson's brother) has its own article and need not be explored here, and BTW, if his brother retained the title to the property, he did not "give" it to him. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC) This article has actually grown in size during its FAR; it does not need to be over 10,000 words, and a second pass to eliminate fluff should be undertaken. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggested change above implemented, but was reverted by another editor. Subsequently change "give" to "provided", as per suggestion.
 * See talk for expansion. I think other editors may have to edit fluff. Wtfiv (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * A would audit would also be helpful. There are 35 instances of would, as in the sample para above, and this one: received a land grant near what would become Washington, Georgia ---> received a land grant near what became Washington, Georgia.  See WP:WOULDCHUCK. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * woulds reduced to 19
 * Wtfiv (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * See talk
 * Wtfiv (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Opportunities to trim verbosity remain. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC) My personal opinion is that Wtfiv, Hog Farm, et al. transformed the article into a piece of high-quality scholarship. We should keep the star based on the research done. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we still need to trim the content down. I'm severely burnt out, so I don't think I'll be able to work on it much. Hog Farm Talk 14:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Same for me, . I enjoyed fixing the article to meet the issues Guerillo mentioned, but since I added the content, I think it'd be helpful if another editor to determine what is not useful, superfluous, or over wordy. (I did try to make the suggested change, but it was edited.) Wtfiv (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * What issues remain outstanding here? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The content and sourcing concerns that led to the original review have been addressed. The article is 2.2K words above the recommended 10K for FA articles. Wtfiv (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In response to ping, the article needs a copyedit for prose tightening, offtopic and verbosity; it wouldn't get out of FAC like this, and we should do more than patch up articles when they clear FAR. Wtfiv does an excellent job of reflecting sources and hewing to them, but unfortunately, with this excessively long article, people give up on the ce phase, and documenting the remaining ce needs takes SOOOOO much time because of the article size.  I'll put together some examples this week. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

 Random samples only to illustrate copyedit and prose tightening needs (not comprehensive): In general, just because a source says something, we don't have to include it (verbosity, prose tightening).
 * General: scan the text for the number of paragraphs that begin with repetitive phrases related to timing-- not only dates, but "after x" and "around this time" and "in the ... " and "on such and such date".
 * 1) . This section has four paragraphs; three of them have topic sentences starting with the time period, and giving the reader (who may want to scan for topic sentences) no idea what the paragraph is about.
 * 2) Refused ... refused ... consecutive sentences.
 * 3) "had dropped its case"?
 * 4)  Why do we care about the Peabody Hotel enough to mention it twice, much less at all?
 * 5) any work
 * 6) Why do we have to mention Bragg here?
 * 7) Declining because of insufficient salary is implied, redundant.


 * 1) This paragraph starts with him going back to Europe for his family, but what is the para about (much more).
 * 2) Why do we need to know he was there when he found out his brother died; the date of his brother's death is later mentioned in the same section, where the relevance is established.
 * 3) Why do we need to know they stayed at the same hotel or eventually rented a house; this is all trivia.
 * 4) The by-date, by-date, by-date recounting in this section is reminiscent of proseline, but it's actually probably coming from a desire to include every detail, although some of this detail is not important to a broad biography.
 * 5) One of the sentence here is much too long, what Tony1 called "a snake".
 * 6) eulogy, implied in rest of sentence, redundant
 * 7) merged the company with another firm redundant (what else do you merge a company with)?

I have pointedly chosen non-controversial (I hope) and non-political sections for illustrating that prose can be tightened. I don't expect my examples to be followed too closely, as I know my prose is less than optimal; these are for illustration purposes only. The article does not need to be as wordy as it is, a copyedit and fine-tuning is still needed and verbosity can be cut down. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No progress; copyedit still needed. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I'll have some time to look at this at the end of next week. Hog Farm Talk 15:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Slowly going through trying to trim, although I've run into a query for Wtfiv Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Jefferson Davis/archive1 on talk. On another note, I'm personally inclined to trim some of the details about his; for instance, I don't know that letting the readers know that Varina Anne died single at age 34 is necessarily the best use of our limited word count available. Hog Farm Talk 00:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * that sounds reasonable, HF -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

HF's edits popped on my watchlist, so I skipped down ahead of where he has worked to see if anything has changed in the month since I last visited (it doesn't seem that anyone else has taken this on); one can still view any section (I didn't look at the top where HF is working) and find excess verbosity. Samples: Author: the entire paragraph about the Southern Historical Society meanders and has repetitive verbosity. We start by saying he was invited to join, then a lengthy description of what it is (it has its own article), and then we say he joined. What's wrong with "in the 1870s, Davis became a life-time member" instead of saying that twice?
 * Paragraph edited and here to address point. Wtfiv (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Death
 * "left Beauvoir" redundant, obviously
 * northbound steamer ... well, it sure wasn't southbound.
 * the next two weeks = two weeks.
 * suggested paragraph implemented. Wtfiv (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

A thorough independent copyedit is needed; glad to see HF is taking it on, but it would be really good to get even more eyes on this and Andrew Jackson so all the trimming isn't left to one editor. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * MOS:SANDWICH in the Legacy section. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  08:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Issue created when editor inserted image of statue with grafitti to reflect current legacy. Gravesite statue of Davis removed to address concern. Wtfiv (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Writings:
 * What is the intended [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jefferson_Davis&oldid=1159539028#Writings organization of this section (alphabetical, chronological)? It doesn't seem to be either.
 * Writings is bibliography of Davis work: 4 books and five articles, an autobiographical fragment, and collected writings. Links are provided for readers' convenience. External links is collection of internet sites provided by editors, some having have bits and pieces of Davis's writing. Wtfiv (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be chronological. small change to collection to reflect this.


 * Why do some have OCLCs, others not? See [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jefferson_Davis&diff=prev&oldid=1159717089]
 * OCLC's added. Wtfiv (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Why does one Article list him as author, others not?
 * edit error...corrected. Wtfiv (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This was due to citebot repeatedly putting the author back in. I think because this one article also has a jstor number. (It's the only one). Added blank last= and first=, which will hopefully address the problem. Diff here. Wtfiv (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * There is a mixture of the way collections of his writings are handled, and it's not clear why they aren't all in External links. There are some in Articles, some in Collections, and others in External links. I can't decipher why they aren't all consolidated in External links.
 * Then a similar problem is found in External links; how are they organized? (Not alphabetical?) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  09:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This bundled all the externals together, moved link to Rice sit where mentioned in Bibliography of Davis's writings. See Wtfiv (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * HarvRef error: Davis, Jefferson (1881b). The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. Vol. II. D. Appleton. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFDavis1881b. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  09:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1881b removed; 1881a converted to 1881. See diff Wtfiv (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * is actively at work here, and the length has been trimmed significantly. Hog Farm Talk 19:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we're about done here; the length is down to about 9100 words and I think that had been the primary remaining problem. Hog Farm Talk 02:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * On it, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, not all of my concerns have been addressed, but close enough. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.