Wikipedia:Featured article review/Paul Kagame/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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC).

Paul Kagame

 * Notified: Amakuru, WikiProject Africa, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Rwanda, 2020-11-11 talk page

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because I raised issues on the talk page about NPOV and comprehensiveness, but did not receive a response.

One of the major issues with this article is that it neglects recent scholarship that analyzes the post-war situation in Rwanda. I made a long list on the talk page of various sources, at least some of which ought to be cited in the article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - In addition to the comments made by Buidhe at the talk page, I'll note that some of the info is straight up outdated. Under "Foreign Policy", the section on the Democratic Republic of the Congo gives a little too much detail on Laurent Kabila's death—why we need to know of its exact circumstances here befuddles me, as it's not as if Kagame was directly involved. There is also little talk of the rumoured deployment of Rwandan soldiers in Congolese territory, or of Kagame's efforts at a rapproachment with the DRC government under President Tshisekedi since 2019 (some detail on that here). For the Uganda section, there is no mention of the Rwanda/Uganda dispute of 2019. More on Kagame's personal relationship with Museveni could also be helpful (see previous source). American relations with Kigali have also improved since the 2012 freeze. His relationship with Burundi is also worth some exploration, considering the historical spillover of the Hutu-Tutsi conflict there and accusations that Kagame has tried to destabilize the country's government. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - whoah, isn't it customary to do informal discussions before initiating a formal review? Please can I request that we close this FAR, and we can move to addressing issues more informally. This is what I've seen with other FAs I've been involved with. I'm sure we can deal with the issues raised, but I'm not very happy that you've sprung this on me out of the blue. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking now I see that buidhe only left their concerns about the Kagame article on the talk page less than a week ago, which makes the time between the first questions about problems to the FAR less than the standard time normally left for people to address concerns there. While I do think this article does have some major areas for improvement, I could see this being moved to the talk page for the time being. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Amakuru I did follow the instructions: "In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Concerned editors should give article watchers 5–7 days to respond to concerns." I both made efforts to improve the article and waited the required period. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * how was I supposed to fix the issues you raised in 5 days? On fact I hadn't seven seen the talk page note until today, and as I said on the talk page today I am willing to work on the article and make the improvements you and Indy are suggesting, but this is likely to take months unfortunately as I don't have huge amounts of time to spare. Maybe can advise, as I've worked on other FAs with her, but generally in previous cases time is given to work through issues before FAR, something you haven't given me here. I can see where you're coming from on the article issues, but this bolt from the blue on an article I worked hard on, has honestly ruined my day and left me feeling quite despondent. Please let's come to an understanding on this. Thanks  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Amakuru my apologies for iPad typing, long medical appts today. Nikkimaria put this on hold so you can have additional time. I have an advantage that Buidhe may not have which is 15 years of knowing who will do the work ;) I know if I ping certain editors or visit their talk, they will bring articles to standard.  One thing Buidhe might do going forward is check whether past-FAC nominators are still active, but Nikkimaria has granted time here and removed the FAR from the WP:FAR page. Probably giving Nikkimaria an idea of what time you need will be good.  Please do not let this ruin your day, as time is always granted at FAR. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I assumed that you had seen the post on the talk page but lost interest in the article, because you did not reply. However, as long as improvements are ongoing then please take as much time as necessary. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sandy and Buidhe. Unfortunately I did miss the talk page notification, and even the subsequent changes that you already made to the article. Probably a sign that I've got too much crap on my watchlist! I feel like it would be very useful to notify regular contributors and/or the FAC nominator at the time of the talk page notice, as well as when the formal FAR is opened. Maybe I'll propose that on the project talk page, unless there are good reasons for not doing so. Anyway, I'll do my best to make progress on updating and making the article more neutral, as time allows. Any tips or assistance from yourself would be gratefully received as well, . Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * On hold to allow for more time for discussion at talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Could we get an update on status? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * apologies, I've lost momentum a bit on this one since January when Sandy last checked in with me but it hasn't slipped my mind. I will make it a priority in the next few days/week to carry on working through the article checking all the sections for updates based on the new sources. Once I'm done with that I'll check back in with Buidhe for any further suggestions or problems they may spot. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * monthly check in. It has now been four months; can we please get this back on the page to get it moving?  how is it looking to you? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the start of the review I have made updates to the sections on the civil war and the genocide, to bring in material mentioned in Caplan's paper. I've also added bits to the "domestic situation" covering the exile and death of Sendashonga, and the subject of RPF killings/Kibeho is reiterated there. In presidency, there's a decent discussion on the circumstances of Kagame's taking over from Bizimungu, with the predominant argument that the latter was forced out and mentioning his later address, but also giving a brief mention to the version of events of Kagame himself, as relayed to Kinzer. Additional things that I think will need doing:
 * Maybe rework "Congo wars" a bit so that the motives behind the wars are more objectively described.
 * In presidency, more discussion on the claims of domestic human rights infringements.
 * Some reworking of "personality and public image" to remove bits that at this point look somewhat biased in PK's favour, and also discuss differing views about whether he's truly popular within Rwanda. (I don't think we can give a definitive answer on that one way or the other, so just have to present whatever evidence exists).
 * Obviously I'll be keen to hear 's views on what the next steps should be as well. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So ... it sounds like we can now bring it back to an active FAR, so we can get other opinions and keep moving forward (towards closing a four-month-old FAR)? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that the "elections" section could use more perspective. For instance, I don't think there's any reliable source which says that the elections aren't rigged, but that doesn't clearly come across. Scholarly sources explain why the elections occur the way they do: "Around the 2017 Rwandan election, many journalists phoned us to discuss the polls, and most asked the same question: Why does President Paul Kagame bother holding elections at all? He had already won a fantastical 93 per cent of the vote in the 2013 election, and he had eliminated presidential term limits in 2010 meaning that he was legally allowed to stay in power until 2034. So why did he go through the motions of organizing a national poll that he was predestined to win? Why not just get rid of elections altogether? When Kagame went on to take 99 per cent of the vote, these questions became even more pertinent.18 Kagame had clearly not even bothered to try and manipulate the election in the clever ways described in previous chapters. Yet even in spite of this, he benefited from polls that had become little more than a political charade. Most obviously, even the stage-managed 2017 contest was important to secure a base level of international legitimacy. While counterfeit democrats often behave arbitrarily, they like to be seen to be men – with a small number of exceptions they are almost always men – of order and responsibility. This means that leaders want to make it look as if they are following the rule of law even when they are not. Kagame is no exception. (Yale UP, How to Rig an Election, pp. 214–215)" Later on the same page, the authors mention that not even pretending to hold elections will get a country kicked out of the African Union. (google books link)

Waldorf also discusses how "the RPF ensures that elections are neither free nor fair", and the historical background on why: "As a rebel movement, the RPF had difficulty attracting Hutu recruits despite its inclusive ideology and its prominent Hutu spokesmen. The RPF conducted an electoral campaign for mayors in the demilitarized north in 1993 but Habyarimana’s party took all the posts. “The RPF realized then that it stood no chance in an open political contest""

With regards to vote-rigging he states the following: "Similarly, Simpser (2013: xv) points out how “[m]anipulating elections excessively and blatantly [i.e. beyond what is necessary to win] can make the manipulating party appear stronger”. This helps explain Kagame winning more than 90% and the RPF more than 75% of the vote. Such vote tallies are not meant to be convincing; rather, they are meant to signal to potential opponents and the populace that Kagame and the RPF are in full control."

In an article called Behind the Façade of Rwanda's Elections (you can access through TWL) Reyntjens states: "Rwanda is a de facto one party state. The RPF maintains its political monopoly through intimidation, threats, human rights abuses, and the elimination of dissent. The regime fully controls the political landscape from the national to the local level. This control is exercised by an elite composed of the minority Tutsi ethnic group, and causes resentment and frustration among the Hutu majority. The RPF is fully aware that opening up the political system would eventually lead to a loss of power."

There's another interesting article, "Entrenched Dictatorship: The Politics of Rigged Elections in Rwanda since 1994" by Susan Thomson and Madeline Hopper

Right now the article is structured to focus on the campaigns, which is the correct structure if these are typical electoral contests where both sides have a chance to win. Instead, I would add an overview with scholarly analysis on the overall strategy and give less detail on the individual campaigns, because the outcome actually is decided in advance. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the elections section this morning - it now has two paragraphs of general discussion at the top, as you suggested. I've then reduced the discussion on each individual election to a couple of paragraphs each. I think it's still worth keeping those, as each election did receive widespread coverage worldwide and there were different players around on each occasion, even if the general narratives are similar. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted at FAR, over four months now since this FAR was opened. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Right now I am seeing an issue with WP:FACR#4, length (well over 10,000 words, and the most obvious thing to trim would be the election section as each one has its own article) and some lingering false balance issues (#1d), such as "Assassination allegations" attributed to Human Rights Watch, when I'm not sure there's any reliable source that disputes that the Rwandan government has carried out assassinations. Most scholarly sources state that RPF carried out assassinations after the civil war as a fact, including (not to mention the new book Do Not Disturb). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * As of 10 April, Amakuru still working on this. I am concerned that five months is much too long to keep a FAR going, and hope that finishing the work here will be a priority.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) `


 * in glancing over the prose, I am finding considerable issues, and I am concerned that five months is stretching the good faith intentions of FAR beyond reasonable limits. The idea is to give editors time to work on issues, but the extensions do not seem to have resulted in work done here. Can we expect work on the sourcing concerns to finish soon? If not, I suggest we should think about proceeding to FARC.  Once you finish sourcing work, a good deal of prose work is still needed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry for late reply - I think I missed your 10 April ping I think because it doesn't have a date on the signature. I'm not really sure what more to do on the content front. I disagree with 's suggestion that we should do away with the individual election campaigns. Irrespective of whether they were competitive or not, they still garnered significant international coverage and are part of a standard layout for a president's article. Re the "assassinatino allegations" I have dropped the word allegations from that section. I did wonder if it needed its own section, but perhaps as it transcended both the VP and presidency phases it is sensible there. There is some tidy-up needed with the last paragraph of the lead, and as you say prose polishing to do, plus sorting out the refs. But in my opinion it's OK at this point. Probably Buidhe disagrees but would be good to have some specific consensuses! Obviously if you feel it's time to delist it then so be it... It's a shame that we haven't got more people coming in through the FAR process. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ack, so sorry for the faulty sig-- probably an artefact of my frequent iPad editing. I am desperately behind after three days in the garden, so will catch up here as soon as I can. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It is easy to find places where prose needs tightening:
 * There are five uses of subsequently, almost always redundant (and they are here). Looking at one sample:
 * Several Hutu politicians, including the prime minister Pierre-Célestin Rwigema, left the government at around the same time as Bizimungu, leaving a cabinet dominated by those close to Kagame. Bizimungu started his own party following his resignation, but this was quickly banned for "destabilising the country". He was subsequently arrested and convicted of corruption and inciting ethnic violence, charges which human rights groups said were politically motivated.
 * left ... leaving ... vary the wording ...
 * "subsequently" arrested ... could not have been arrested previously

Concern about representation of sources: My concern is that wherever I look, I can find issues like this, so unless a top-to-bottom rewrite is undertaken, I think we are long past the time when we should proceed to FARC. Keeping an article of this nature updated requires constant vigilance, which this article does not seem to have had. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Text says: Since the end of the Rwandan genocide in 1994, Rwanda has enjoyed a close relationship with the English speaking world, in particular the United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK).
 * The 2012 source mentions Clinton, saying that aid will be cut ... suggesting that large parts of this article may still be outdated or misrepresenting info based on current or broader sources (Clinton is not the US).
 * as well as supporting development projects.
 * Based on a primary source only, with no secondary source given.
 * - the point about the US is covered in the last paragraph of that section, detailing how they initially cut aid around 2012-13, but have subsequently revived it and remain close as of recently. And no problem with a primary source on a point of fact. But anyway, on the wider point, I'm obviously glad that this FAR has pushed me into updating this article, because I completely agree with the original assessment from l;ast year that it needed some updating based on later developments and the shift in scholarly POV. But I've done that, and I completely disagree that the idea that we now have to throw the whole thing away and start again. But anyway, so be it. I don't disagree that the prose could be polished in places and a few more updates made, but personally I'm satisfied that this article is a good and fair representation of this BLP and that's of more importance than whether it has a shiny gold star at the top or not. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Remaining issues include citations and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that the FAR process has resulted in considerable improvement to the article, which is great. However, if this article came up at FAC I would definitely oppose it on the basis that it is not "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". The article still has an overreliance on press articles compared to scholarship, which comes at the cost of privileging surface-level events to deeper analysis and understanding of underlying factors. I would also oppose on the lack of summary style and excessive detail in places. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist The article needs a thorough review of its prose to summarise and WP:SPINOUT longer sections. Discussion of Kagame's policies seems to be mixed with the Presidential section and should be given their own section. had great edits on the article in April, but it still needs more work to bring it to FA standards. Z1720 (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * obviously it's clear that this article no longer has the support of the community as an FA, so I won't quibble on that point, but I'm curious why you think policies don't belong in the section on his presidency? Per other FAs such as Barack Obama, Richard Nixon etc, policies are generally included within that section in an article. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of creating a "Political philosophy and views" section, similar to John Adams. However, I looked at other political bio FAs and I think a political philosophy section is not common. My suggestion was to put his personal philosophy into its own section so that the "Domestic policy" and "Foreign policy" sections would only contain what he did while in office and therefore be shorter. I still think those sections are too long and could use a trim. Z1720 (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Work has been conducted on the article since I gave my perspective. I will reevaluate in the coming days. Z1720 (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep it's close, but I'm certainly leaning towards keeping. Paul Kagame is a current world leader, there is simply not enough written about him yet (and not enough known—consider what his policies and actions will influence in 50 years?) to split into sub articles, have a deeper understanding or even compare to figures like Nixon/John Adams. I am yet to see examples of the numerous pieces of relevant and significant literature that this article is supposably missing. The standards being held to this article are astronomical and not keeping with the reality of the situation; if this isn't an FA of the current leader of an African country, what is? Aza24 (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * there is simply not enough written about him yet Really? I made a long, incomplete, list of scholarly sources on the talk page. There's enough to say to fill several articles, which is why it's important to use summary style on the top level one. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes really, "there is simply not enough written about him yet to... have a deeper understanding ". What are these pertinent comments and observations that the article is missing? Are we sure these sources do not just repeat information already present? And are we sure that they offer unique insights that are notable enough to even include? Just because there are unused sources is not a fault in itself, notwithstanding the question as to if they will add anything in the first place. Aza24 (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article would look quite different if you started over again with the scholarly sources and used news only to flesh out details if necessary. Different emphases, coverage of different topics, deeper analysis of certain topics that are not covered in news with omission of surface-level information that doesn't belong in this article. To cite just one example, Waldorf discusses how the RPF strategy to maintain its power is to offer rewards to a larger segment of the population rather than relying on political repression alone. The article gives a decent overview of many of the relevant policies, but it does not explain why they were decided upon or what purpose it serves. So it cannot be considered to meet FA criteria 1b or 1c. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This process started with the request to update with latest literature, and make sure that the subject was presented from a neutral point of view. I spent considerable time doing that, with (per the original suggestion) strong reference to the Caplan paper, which is one of the latest balanced reviews out there and highlights all the major question marks around Kagame while also noting his achievements. All that is in the article, which now presents the timeline of his life with appropriate caveats everywhere regarding the different viewpoints. As I said before, you could read the latest book by Linda Melvern and you'd think Kagame's a saint, or alternatively you could read the latest book by Judi Rever or Michela Wrong and think he's the worst tyrant ever. This article doesn't take either of those two sides, as indeed it shouldn't per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and I'm just glad that someone has finally come out to defend it. That's not to say that it's perfect of course, but the goal of FAR is to save the star if possible; and the proposed solution of removing the election campaigns, despite the significant coverage they received, isn't IMHO the answer. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I struck my delist opinion above, and I'll take a look at this in the coming days. If I don't respond in a week, please ping me as I probably forgot. Z1720 (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took so long to take a look at this. I posted comments and questions on the article's talk page, and that is where I will do my review to avoid making the FAR co-ordinators read all of my comments. Please respond to comments there. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: Work is continuing, but at a slower pace due to real-life events among editors. I recommend that this FAR stay open. Z1720 (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have conducted a first review and copyedit of the article to "Foreign policy", with comments placed on the talk page. did a great job responding to my smaller comments, but some of the larger ones still need work (like updating the economy section). The last major edit was August 24. I'm happy to continue if someone is willing to help address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still working on it as and when I can, but I also have a lot other things going on and I'm aware I may be testing people's patience here. I'll be able to address more of the points in the next week hopefully. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am also very busy, with real-life stuff happening for me, so I am not in a rush to review this. I'm happy to keep this open and review once edits are complete if the FAR co-ords are willing to keep it open as well. Please ping me once the article is ready for more comments. Other editors are also welcome to ping me if they are willing to help restore this. Z1720 (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * and others: I have some unresolved comments on the article's talk page. When they are addressed I'll continue the review. Z1720 (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for your comment here, and your patience. As may be obvious from my contributions, I have been concentrating quite heavily on generating content of late as part of the WikiCup, with quite a few new FAs and GAs. Perhaps I should have prioritised this FAR, I don't know, but obviously as a WP:Volunteer I can only do what I can do at the end of the day. So the upshot of all that is that unfortunately in recent months, as I still have a lot of other real-life commitments going on too, I haven't been able to invest the time in Paul Kagame. But there's light at the end of the tunnel - this year's WikiCup finishes in about two weeks, and after that I'm going to pause writing new articles for a little while and I anticipate that I'll be able to spend my Wiki-time concentrating fully on the points you've raised at the Paul Kagame talk page and getting that closed out. Will that be OK with you? Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is completely fine with me. As a former Wikicup competitor, I understand wanting to do your best in that competition. There's no rush from my end and I'm ready to continue when you are. Z1720 (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A year in to this review, this is becoming an uncomfortable issue in |Coventry_City_2–2_Bristol_City_(1977)|2015_Africa_Cup_of_Nations_Final|UEFA_Euro_2008_Final terms of priorities; a widely viewed FA should not be neglected for so long. I recommend one more month, or we should move on with Delisting here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , as they are the expert editor leading this FAR rescue. I defer to them about how much time they can spend in this article's cleanup. Now that wikicup is over, are you returning to this? Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, that is still very much the plan. I hope I can get through things by the end of November, I'll get back to fixing the economy and education issues raised by yourself in the next day or two. Obviously it depends a bit what else comes up in the review though, and how close we are to being complete. It would be great to be able to do the extensive re-sourcing and major rewriting suggested by Buidhe, but really I'd be lying if I said I could do all that in a month! Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - Could we please get an update here? Hog Farm Talk 05:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * At over a year now, this FAR is passing the British Empire record (which was just under a year), and that length occurred not because of lack of activity, rather lack of agreement among very active participants. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  07:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, well with the deepest sadness I think I'm going to have to throw in the towel on this one and accept a delist. I apologise sincerely for stringing you along all this time, it was always my very genuine intention to address the points that were concerning Z1720 - points which I think could have led this article to keep its star in the end. Unfortunately, I've just found myself unable to commit the necessary time to working on the updates required. The reality of attempting to be a Wikipedian while also having a young family, keeping down a full-time job and committing to other extracurricular activities too! More recently, I promised to address the issues once I had finished my marathon WikiCup October, to tackle this in November, but once again I've found myself horribly busy in real life recently (to the extent that I can't catch a moment to just relax even though I've not been active on Wikipedia). So that's where we are. Let's delist this, because obviously it can't be kept going forever, and I'll hopefully be able to continue updating the out-of-date and less-well-structured sections at some point in the future. Z1720 I'll let you know if and when that happens, and while it is unlikely to be sufficient for this article to regain FA status in its current form - given the sentiments of Buidhe etc above - it would at least satisfy me that it's presenting something reasonably decent to our readers. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist per Amakuru. Sorry to see this, Amakuru, but I am increasingly worrying about what will become of the FAR page (relative to the template limits issue) with the WikiProject Cyclone issues in the pipeline, and have been concerned that we need to watch the length here.  I hope you'll be able to bring it back to FAC in the future! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist per Amakuru, I trust their judgment expressed above. Hog Farm Talk 14:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist per Amakuru. Please ping me when this is ready for a pre-FAC PR. Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC) Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.