Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of colonial governors of New Jersey/archive1


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

The list was promoted by User:Hahc21 10:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC).

List of colonial governors of New Jersey

 * Nominator(s): ColonelHenry (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been worked on this article for the past three months, starting on 1 March 2013, when I came across it while looking for information about an ancestor of mine, Lord Neil Campbell, who served as Deputy Governor in East Jersey. When I encountered the article that day, it looked like this, and I decided to bring it up to the standard set by List of colonial governors of Massachusetts (a featured list which includes another two of my ancestors). After contributing 278 edits (out of 389 total) to expand this article, I think the work I can bring to this article is done, and I am nominating this article for featured list status confident that the reviewer's suggestions will put the last finishing touches on the article. My only regret is that I have not been able to find any more fair-use portraits of the colonial governors (while I have been able to find several images claiming to be some of them, they are either very dubious or incorrectly labeled). I look forward to your comments, suggestions, and support. Thank you. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Article seems fine to me; it's complete and full of detail. Nice work. Lester Foster (talk &#124; talk) 19:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support This article meets all the criteria for a feature list.
 * 1.Prose - I see no problems with the writing style. The writing is at least as good as you would see in a regional newspaper or magazine.
 * 2.Lead - The lead clearly sums up all the information in the article, and encourages the reader to continue reading the article.
 * 3.Comprehensiveness - The article thoroughly covers all of New Jersey's colonial governors, and is extremely well-referenced.
 * 4.Structure. The article is divided into sections with tables that are easy to read, and the way that the sections are divided (e.g., governors of East Jersey) makes sense from a historic standpoint.
 * 5.Style. I see no conflicts with the Manual of Style, and the article has a lot of pictures and tables.
 * 6.Stability. No edit warring is occurring.
 * DavidinNJ (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose not quite as simple as DavidinNJ may think I'm afraid. A very quick scan over the list...
 * WP:YEAR throughout, i.e. year ranges in the same century don't need to repeat the century.
 * Done (28 June 2013). Fix format for years so that century is not repeated. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Section headings need this. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Still outstanding. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * " Lord Berkeley" no need to suddenly Lord him, Berkeley is fine.
 * Done (28 June 2013). Changed two instances of "Lord Berkeley" to "Berkeley." DavidinNJ (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Several portraits are missing, would be better to have a centrally-aligned em-dash or similar to show it's not just "still loading" or something.
 * Reply I stated above my regrets that I could not locate more fair-use portraits for several governors despite contacting several archives/museums/libraries. There are allegedly portraits for Kieft (dubious, cannot find anything substantiating it) and Coxe (actually a portrait of his son), and Reading (though other sources claimed it could be any of three other people). I will put an em-dash in those empty cells where no portrait is coming. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done emdashes added to cells without portraits. (29 June 2013).--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Names usually sort by surname, the tables here seem to differ from that idea.
 * Done (28 June 2013). Made tables non-sortable.  Chronological table with no other numeric information should not be sortable. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No good reason for Notes to be sortable.
 * Done (28 June 2013). Made tables non-sortable. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Why are some notes referenced while many others aren't? Where are the "unreferenced" notes referenced?
 * Reply: If I used one or two sources for the several notes attached one of the governors, I put the citation at the end of the bulleted list rather than have each bulletpoint statement end with the same note.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, on my next pass I'll need to check your notes. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done I've added additional sources, and repeated citation for several of the bulletpointed statements.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, avoid blank cells, so avoid blank notes.
 * And what would be the solution to this? I could tell someone to avoid construction traffic on Fifth Avenue, but it's rather useless unless I advise them of a detour route.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A simple en-/em-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done - emdash added to that one empty "notes" cell. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "24 May 1626[24]" some punctuation missing.
 * Done (28 June 2013). Added period after 1626. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you certain your map images are accessible?
 * Done (28 June 2013). All maps and other photos have an alternative caption. Alt captions for maps describe color layout in detail. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * All tables should comply with MOS:DTT for accessibility for screen readers.
 * Done (28 June 2013). I reviewed all the tables for column/row structure and color, and all comply with MOS:DTT. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "(c.1612-1672)" en-dash needed.
 * Done (28 June 2013). Replaced all date-based or page-based EM dashes with EN dashes. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Avoid linking common terms like "hurricane".
 * Done (29 June 2013) --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "debtors prison" should be "debtors' prison".
 * Done (29 June 2013) --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Why is the "portrait" col sortable?
 * Done (28 June 2013). Made tables non-sortable. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Why is the "Restoration of New Netherland (1673–1674)" table sortable (with just one entry)?
 * Done (28 June 2013). Made tables non-sortable. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "See notes above." - not useful in a sortable table.
 * Done (28 June 2013). Made tables non-sortable. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "The oak tree is said to be more than 500 years old." citation needed.
 * Done (29 June 2013). Citation added. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * " the oldest building at Princeton University" citation needed... common theme here, you need to make sure the captions are adequately referenced.
 * Done (29 June 2013). Citation added to Nassau Hall/Princeton, the Keith line map, and Proprietary House images. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "(1686 – 1767)" be consistent with spacing around the en-dash.
 * Done (28 June 2013). Removed spaces around dashes in two locations. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * See also is massively overdone. First, remove all items that already are linked to in the article.  Second, try to work out how (or why) a reader could (or would) make a link between this article and, say, List of mayors of New York City.
 * Done (29 June 2013) removed those mentioned in article, removed two NYC links. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Check all references for compliance with WP:DASH.
 * Done (28 June 2013). Replaced all date-based or page-based EM dashes with EN dashes. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Further reading: " 1702—1738" vs "1664-1738" - please apply WP:DASH and WP:YEAR consistently across the whole list.
 * Done (28 June 2013). Replaced all date-based or page-based EM dashes with EN dashes. Standardized year format not to repeat century. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

That's it for a first pass, plenty more if required I'm sure! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @RamblingMan...thanks for your first pass. I'm afraid I'm not really skillful at the syntax of tables and largely have used the table format from another article, I'll have to chalk this one up to the learning curve and see what skills I can acquire in the next day or two. Could you see if there are "plenty more" so I can address them all in one fell swoop tomorrow morning and afternoon?--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'll only be on-wiki intermittently between now and Sunday, so I can't guarantee that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man, I fixed all the technical issues that you cited. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to David for assisting in these repairs. Very much appreciated. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * NOMINATOR'S COMMENT: I assert that as of 6 July 2013 either I or User:DavidinNJ have rectified and addressed each of issues raised by User:The Rambling Man above. If these are his only grounds for his opposition, please take note of my effort to remedy them. I will contact him and ask for him to give a second look if there are further issues in addition to those above, or if he approves of how I addressed the issues enumerated above (See: ). Please take this into consideration.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Further
 * "(1655)[24]Template:Rp:172-177Authorized " eh?
 * Done. Fixed template format, "authorized" began next bullet point. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "pp.287-305" en-dash please. Check others.
 * Done. After a few passes, I believe I've found the stray remaining hyphens.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Space between pp. and range or not? Space between p. and page number or not?  Be consistent throughout the whole list.
 * Comment: Is there a policy regarding style on this one? I've generally chosen to not use a space after pp.141–143, or p.56 just to avoid wide gaps between sentences due to the rp template's format.  I haven't found a dictum stating space or no space in this situation. I think, after doing several passes to check the endash thing with this issue that my omitting a space is the consistent usage, I do not see any remaining stray spaces. I would consider this one done unless your or I happen across a style/policy instructing me to put in a space.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't try to enforce a particular style, I tried to enforce consistency. E.g. ref 101 has a space.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply: Reference 101 did not have a space when I checked. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Sir Edmund Plowden (1590–1659)." see WP:CAPTION, this isn't a complete sentence so it shouldn't have a full stop.
 * Done -- ColonelHenry (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * " 600 years old. [82]" no spaces between punctuation and refs.
 * Done -- ColonelHenry (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment please check for correct implementation of WP:DASH, e.g. "pp.121-128" should use an en-dash, not a hyphen (there are several page ranges in the refs which fail this too). And "The relative locations of New Netherland (magenta) and New Sweden (blue) in eastern North America." is not a complete sentence so shouldn't need a full stop (per WP:CAPTION), please check others as I noted above. Also, please ensure tables meet MOS:DTT for row and col scopes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply: Which particular references are not in compliance? I'd rather you tell me which ones instead of making me go out on a wild goose chase or spend time and still not see what you are seeing.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ref 81 for instance. And not sure but it looks like the Mcreary book is using an em-dash in the year range, not an en-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Ref 81 & Mcreary to en-dashes. --ColonelHenry (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "pp.121-128" fixed. Done. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * full stop removed from picture caption above-mentioned, and two additional. Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply as for "ensuring tables meet MOS:DTT for row and col scopes"...I don't know what that means, or what you want me to look for. If there is a problem, bring it to my attention. I'd prefer not having to fumble for a light switch in the dark only to find there are no problems needing to be addressed. Please eludicate and specify any particular problems that need to be remedied. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the instructions for row and col scopes are contained within MOS:DTT. This is to help screen reading software announce the table correctly. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply: Still, I would like an example...something to chalk up to the learning curve. The tables are written so that the column is first introduced as a width parameter, none of the examples provide an indication of how to work the scope around that. I cut and pasted the table from an article where I thought their table matched what I needed here. So, if you want me to change anything (and I'm amenable to learn how), an example of what you mean would be appreciated for the benefit of this novice in the world of tables.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty much any recently-promoted FL will demonstrate the appropriate inclusion of  and  .  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would assuming that being the FL-delegate, you'd be able to point me to an apposite example (as I've asked for twice) instead of expecting me to go out on an aimless grail quest not knowing what to look for. So, I'll put it to you this way, please tell me how to adapt the excerpt below, or provide me an example that applies to the table format from the article, excerpted below. I'm asking you to show me, not tell me to search. With the limited time I can attend to improving articles on Wikipedia, I'd rather not waste it being told to look for something I am clueless about when it will take a few moments of your time to tell/show me what you want. Thank you. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We all have limited time I'm afraid. You can find recently promoted lists here and as an example, you could look at List of NK Maribor players:

{| class="sortable wikitable plainrowheaders" style="text-align:center;" ! scope="col" width="200"|Name ! scope="col" width="200"|Country represented ! scope="col" width="15"|First ! scope="col" width="15"|Last ! scope="col" width="15"|Seasons ! scope="col" width="15" data-sort-type="number"|Apps ! scope="col" width="15" data-sort-type="number"|Goals ! scope="row" align=left|Tomislav Prosen .... .... ....
 * +List of Maribor players, and displaying the types of accomplishments and statistics by the players during their time with the club

Copy and paste that into a sandbox to see the code. I'm not here as FL director to show you everything like this I'm afraid, my commitments to this project extend way beyond just this one list. One of the major issues I have is with drive-by pile-on supports by people who clearly haven't taken the time to examine the quality of a list against the criteria, most pertinently the MOS. Sorry if you find it difficult to do the research I've suggested. I guess we're all busy doing one thing or another. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We're all on limited time, and it only took a few minutes of your time. I appreciate having an example to learn from, and will see what I can do forthwith. On the other hand, as a matter of general principle I'm of the school of thought that you don't teach a clueless kid to fish by pointing him to a bookshelf and say "have at it." --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite, I pointed you at the riverbank and some rods and said "have at it". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ...after asking a few times saying "hey, the books don't cut it."--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm done here. I've tried to help make the article scrape to the minimum quality required at FLC, the driveby supporters will get you over the line I'm sure.  Good luck.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being an unwittingly incompetent novice with tables, and that trying to do the example you've provided has had the effect of screwing up the tables, after bringing them into compliance with your comments above. I simply just don't know how to do this. The tables work as is, but when I try doing what you want me to do (which I fail to see any benefit), I'm taking a few undesirable steps backward. So, after a valiant and willing effort to satisfy your insistence upon MOS:DTT, I have to give up on this one...especially since you're unwilling to provide sufficient assistance/instruction despite commentat(ing) and criticis(ing) and stack(ing) up bytes of nothingness while sniping from the perimeter. Perhaps I expect too much, because usually when I review a GA from time to time, for the minor things I can fix myself (like identifying or replacing stray hyphens), or if there's something a nominator doesn't understand, I roll up my sleeves and jump in. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't write all FLCs on behalf of editors. I've made a change to your list to show you something of what is required.  If you want to "give up" then fine, my oppose stands, and I've provided you with (a) the MOS link (b) examples of tables which use the row and col scopes.  Beyond that you're expecting me to do it all for you?  No, that's not happening.  Rest assured I'm much more inclined to assist those who are willing to listen rather than those who are prepared to copy and paste selected items of my user page here. (As for rolling up my sleeves... please.  Check my edit history.  I do my fair share.  How rude to passively assert I don't.  If you don't want to read/understand/learn how better to comply with MOS with respect to tables, that's your problem I'm afraid). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I asked you for help and for you to explain it, stating my obvious shortcomings with tables, and you gave me scraps I could not use. That was about as helpful as giving me as screwdriver to shoot a rabid dog. So apparently, instead of taking a few minutes to mentor and advise, you dictated and then get miffed because I still don't understand your less than informative explanation. Instead, I've asked for help here: and will reach out to a few editors who might be able to give a few precious minutes to the greater cause instead of lecturing me on my lack of knowledge before the altar. Thanks. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well if pointing you to a precise guideline, and pointing you to an example of it in use (as per all recently-promoted FLs) is equivalent to giving you "scraps" or a "screwdriver to shoot a rabid dog", then I may as well give up and edit all these FLCs myself. Sorry you've had this disappointing experience.  Perhaps it's all the more disappointing after the drive-by supports you already have who clearly haven't compared the list against the appropriate criteria.  We tend to expect editors who nominate lists here to be competent and be able to take constructive advice (such as "see the MOS article" and "see the example of the MOS instruction in action") and we don't expect to have to do all the legwork.  Maybe that's a surprise to you?  In any case, I'm glad you've taken the gauntlet and asked for help from others, that's what Wikipedia is all about.  Once we're done there, I'll be happy to re-visit and re-review in detail.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I expressed my willingness to learn and to take constructive advice, but when I point out the MOS guideline doesn't tell me what I need (i.e. none of the examples tell me how to adapt the content of the FLC to meet that guideline), I don't expect to be told to find something else to read. So, FYI, the guideline you call "precise" wasn't "precise." I only had to ask for a helpful and useable explanation like a half-dozen times before you getting pissed off not because you offer an inadequate answer, but because I had the audacity to respond stating that I don't get your inadequate answer. I didn't ask you to do all the legwork as you presume, I asked you to explain to me how to adapt my table text to meet your comment. So much for saying "hey, what do you mean?"...I get my head cut off for not knowing some obscure, useless, and (in terms of content) meaningless code. Thanks for taking half a day to provide me the explanation I asked for this morning. It took you all of five minutes to answer my question but you wasted a few hours getting there. Perhaps I'm just a little more helpful when someone kneels before the altar and says "I don't understand" oh mighty liege lord. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I do apologise for spending the day out trying to buy clothes, a cot etc for my new baby when, of course, I should have been supplicating myself at your own altar, providing you explanations you demanded this morning. Forgive me for not realising the altar was your's not mine.  Forgive me for assuming there is no deadline.  In any case, you've got all the information you need from me, along with an example edit.  I can't do more than that other than edit your nomination myself.  And that isn't my role.  Please take onboard the great advice I'm sure you'll get from others and that will supersede mine no doubt, and good luck.  In your own style, and as your user page says "Find a better line to draw in the sand before you deign to waste my time or piss me off.", I'm drawing the line now, no need to piss you off further, please let's disengage and I'll be happy to never engage with you again, so job done, ok? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll be glad to disengage from this, for an FL-director, you're rather hostile when someone has a further question about what exactly you want when your first statement is vague and uninformative. Just think, I could have said done yesterday on this point when you said "hey, bring it into compliance with MOS:DTT" and I stated after looking at MOS:DTT, "what do you mean exactly, what are you looking for" and you immediately responded the instructions for row and col scopes are contained within MOS:DTT. thanks for the vicious circle...we could have avoided the problem if you answered my question then instead of giving me the FLC equivalent of a feedback loop. I could care less if you had to buy socks, when you said "do this", you just couldn't answer a simple question..."how?"...and yet you tell me I should be "competent."...sniping from the perimeter indeed. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sadly noted. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've not read all the above. In response to, also , I've made . Strictly speaking, it's unnecessary, since MOS:DTT was written when we served XHTML 1.0, where the rules were similar to HTML 4.0, kinda complicated. We now serve HTML5, where if the  element has no   attribute, that's setting the auto state, which was not present in the HTML 4.0 spec - it makes the header cell apply to a set of cells selected based on context. That is to say, if the first row of a table contains only   elements, each one of those is implicitly   - it doesn't need to be stated explicitly. -- Red rose64 (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am grateful for your help, Redrose64.--ColonelHenry (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

NOMINATOR'S COMMENT: The second round of suggestions for improvement and compliance added by User:The Rambling Man (q.v. above) have been addressed, and he has provided no further comments to be addressed in a week. As there are no currently unaddressed comments associated with his above-stated opposition, these comments should be considered resolved.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done MOS:DTT comments from User:The Rambling Man satisfied with help from User:Redrose64.--ColonelHenry (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. - The article is well-written, well-researched and it appears to be quite comprehensive. Nice work! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support: This is a fantastic article, the only thing I would suggest is cutting down on the See also links. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 05:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments from User Nergaal
 * Since the topic of the article is a bit vague (New Jersey was formed much later) I strongly suggest showing an anachronistic map with all the entities discussed in this article overlaid on the current location of New Jersey. That way it is easy to understand the relevance of the entities discussed in this list to any new casual reader. Nergaal (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply: I do think that is a good idea and I will look into that idea moving forward. I do not know enough about making map images much less one with several overlapping layers, so I will have to reach out to editors with mapmaking experience. Further, the boundaries of the failed New Albion colony were never officially set and there are several different diverging notions of those boundaries among scholars. It is worth exploring whether (given the diverging scholarly opinions on boundaries) and the technical issues in the making of such a map whether this idea is feasible--which will not be a quick decision. However, as far as the featured list criteria are concerned, I do not believe this suggestion should hold up any decision on the promotion of this article.  Thank you for an intriguing suggestion.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Umh, yeah, except for #4. Nergaal (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply: What do you mean #4? If you mean criteria 4, discussion of tables and MOS section guidelines doesn't apply, unless you can point something out others and I have missed.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.