Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Fullmetal Alchemist/1

Fullmetal Alchemist

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Fullmetal_Alchemist/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: not listed Pyrotec (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I am bringing this up for community reassessment since I believe the recent individual reassessment by User:Adam Cuerden was largely in error, seen at Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist/GA2. Specifically, his arguments eventually boiled down to how the article was structured instead of applying the GA criteria to the content in the article itself. Furthermore, his suggestions for restructuring would not be without controversy, as has been the subject of much debate recently with article families such as Ghost in the Shell and Neon Genesis Evangelion, but that's beside the point. Adam appeared to be intentionally finding fault with the article so that he could eventually delist it, which goes against the general spirit of GAR which is meant to help editors improve an article back to GA-level, so this is also one of my arguments for a flawed review.

I do not believe the article warranted a delisting, because in its current form, it largely exhibits qualities and structure that have been apart of WP:ANIME for many years now, something which had been decided by consensus and then written into WP:MOS-AM. Specifically, the project has featured articles such as School Rumble and Tokyo Mew Mew which share the same general structure of Fullmetal Alchemist, so I do not believe Adam's issues with how the article is structured should be taken into account when applying the GA criteria. Not that the article didn't have some other, relatively minor issues in comparison, but those could have been fixed if Adam gave editors the time needed instead of a speedy delisting. Adam did bring up some concerns about how the article needs a general copyedit, and there was also a little bit having to do with sourcing (there is at least one cn template in the article, and some other concerns with a few sources), but his assessment in regards to criterion 3 is largely in opposition to how WP:ANIME has treated articles in the past, like in the two featured articles I linked above.

So does the article have some problems? Sure, it probably does, but they are relatively minor issues that could easily have been worked on and therefore had its GA status retained instead of having a near-pointless delisting almost entirely based on the structure of the article. If there was going to be a discussion about the structure of the article and how to organize its information, then GAR is clearly not the place to do so.--  十  八  21:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is a copy-paste from that assessment as to why I failed it. Given it's broken down by the GA criteria, I don't think that's a fair assessment at all. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The more I look into this, the worse it looks. Here's a summary of the issues:

The organization of this article is a mess. WP:LEAD is ignored completely; the lead does not reflect the article's content in the least; noone would ever expect that this was the only article on Wikipedia where the first anime's reception was covered, for example (And, whilst GA may not look at the overall structure of groups of articles, suffice to say: the article tree around Fullmetal Alchemist is appalling; instead of actually attempting to discuss any spinoff, it's just bad, half-hearted lists of incomplete plot summaries.) Trying to follow any thread in this article is made very difficult due to poor structure. For example, discussion of the animé takes place over four different sections ("Differences in the first anime adaptation", "Production", "Anime series", "Anime reception", and, particularly in "Anime reception", does a terrible job specifying which animé is being discussed. If the article is meant to be on the manga, all but a paragraph or two on the animé should be spun off to Fullmetal Alchemist (anime); and that article should have a for template at the top directing people to the article on the second anime. It is insane to try to cover the anime in full in the article on the manga. Alternatively, if an overview article is preferred, both the manga and anime should be spun off, and this article trimmed down into a concise overview. As it is, the structure is terrible, it's confusing, and nowhere near GA level.
 * Criterion 1, Well-written:

More simply, it's just not very well-written. Impenetratble sentences like "As the plot continued, however, she felt some characters were maturing and decided to change some scenes, resulting in some sketches of the faces of the characters being improvised." or weird sentence structures such as "as commented by Viz to avoid references to Christianity." abound. A complete copyedit is necessary.

It has a citation needed tag; there seems to be no rush to fix this. I'm also not entirely convinced every sentence in the lead appears later, but it's hard to be sure on that.
 * Criterion 2, Verifiability:

Going more in-depth, several references are to the various branches of Amazon.com, and one is to this page on About.com, which is, at the very least, a dubious source.

Finally, the plot summary section seems dubious from the view of original research, since it makes statements about the anime following the manga up to a certain point, then diverging, which seems like it should need a citation.

If this is meant to be an article on the manga, this is not a very good article on the manga. One would expect to find at least a bit of critical analysis in a good article on the manga, a bit of discussion of themes, and so on. Perhaps it would seem a bit more in depth if it didn't have all the other material in.
 * Criterion 3a, It addresses the main points of the topic:

If this is meant to be an overview article, it fails to present itself as such. The lead fails to set up the structure of the article, so, while main points may be there, they aren't particularly accessible by users.

WP:SS is in the GA criteria, so let's review against. It fails to use appropriate spinoff articles, instead somehow making horribly inappropriate subarticles: A list of episodes of the anime is not a substitute for an article on the anime when it means you have to leave lengthy reception section on the anime, amongst others, standing completely inappropriately in the manga article. A sane spinoff would let you move most of the anime discussion to the article on the anime, giving a good, tight overview article on the manga.
 * Criterion 3b, it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).:

This article fails far too comprehensively to be fixed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Further, WP:MOS-AM has never received community approval, and goes against actually approved guidelines and policy, including ones directly linked from WP:WIAGA. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If WP:WIAGA says (as it does in criterion 1) that the material must follow WP:LEAD, and WP:LEAD says, as it does, that "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" - then the article must do that to pass criterion 1. This is not something that can be overridden by a Wikiproject.
 * If WP:WIAGA says (as it does in Criterion 3) that the article must follow Summary Style, then it needs to follow that to pass GA. The Anime Wikiproject can't overturn that.
 * These are written into the GA criteria. The Anime Wikiproject's suggestions are not. End. Of. Story. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in MOS-AM that goes against WP:LEAD. Indeed, MOS-AM actually echos the sentiment of WP:LEAD and links to it at the end of said section. Furthermore, MOS-AM notes in WP:MOS-AM point one regarding the use of WP:SS in an article, which (again) echos what is written at WP:SS and gives a link to said guideline at the end of the sentence.


 * If MOS-AM is taken more as a style guide of anime/manga articles, then there's nothing specifically at issue with it that goes against any specific guideline or policy. Just saying it does doesn't mean it's true. That MOS was largely decided by consensus by WP:ANIME over the years, and since it almost entirely deals with how anime/manga articles are structured, its kind of a moot point. If the MOS was so against established guidelines, then how, pray tell, did School Rumble pass as an FA a few years ago?--  十  八  21:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're avoiding the main point: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" - This article doesn't do that in the slightest, because it focuses so much on the manga, when over half the article is on other adaptations.
 * Please respond to the actual points raised about the article. Further, I note that even you don't claim the article currently passes the GA criteria, you yourself mention the need for a copyedit and citation needed tags, so I don't see how you could possibly expect this article to be restored to GA status. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The lead, as it is now, introduces the topic as a manga, gives a brief synopsis, touches on the fact that there were various adaptations, and goes into its reception. So to say the lead doesn't reflect the body of the article doesn't really make sense to me. The lead of an article of this size is only meant to be 3 or 4 paragraphs at most per WP:LEAD. There simply isn't enough room to add in a much more detailed description of the adaptations beyond writing a separate paragraph for it.


 * The spirit of a GAR is not to force a delist; it is to bring up issues with the article and give editors the necessary time to improve the article, the latter of which I do not believe was done. Since your review was largely based on the article's structure, and I believe this to be a flawed argument as I have explained above, then the rest of the article's issues are relatively minor and could easily be fixed, including the issue with the lead, copyediting, and any sourcing concerns. This re-reassessment is to determine the validity of your claims related to the article's structure and if that can be applied to the GA criteria or not. The other concerns are minor in comparison.--  十  八  21:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think any neutral observer would consider this "A concise version of the article" that "briefly summarize[s] the most important points". Whilst the anime is at least mentioned in the lead, the points about it covered are mere trivialities - a dry listing of distribution and production companies. Further, it contains factual errors - Bones produced the second anime series, but co-produced the first one; the lead states instead that they produced both. But even besides the factual error, this can hardly be considered the "most important points".
 * Further, look at the actual content. "its dub were distributed in other regions by Madman Entertainment, Revelation Films, or Manga Entertainment" - ignoring the grammatical error, this is uncited in the rest of the article - a Criterion 2 violation. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And this is why I closed it. The more you look at and check this article, the more problems spring out. The closer you look, the more problems you'll fine. We haven't even touched on the citations to Amazon.jp, or Amazon.fr, or the other issues, and, frankly, I find it rather poor form that you are picking up one point you think is easy to attack me over, whilst ignoring the many, many other issues I raised. As said before, even you agree that it doesn't stand up to GA as it is, but nothing has been done to fix the citations (Criterion 2), nothing has been done to copyedit the article (Criterion 1), and that's before we get to the structural problems, the lead problems, and all the rest. It's simply bad faith to open a reassessment when no work has been done to fix the problems you agree are problems with the article. Further, you're arguing a strawman of my points. I have said repeatedly that, if the lead was rewritten to explicitly be about the franchise, and the body text was reorganised a bit so that, for example, the anime and Light novels material was positioned together, it could be a decent article, whilst still putting everything together. But the lead presents it explicitly as being on the manga, and for an article supposedly on the manga, it lacks focus.
 * You could either spin the anime and other adaptations out to focus on the manga, or you could attempt to make the article put information on the manga together, information on the anime together, information on the light novels together, etc, rewrite the lead to begin "The Fullmetal Alchemist franchise began as a manga, and has been adapted to..." and have what you actually seem to want, an article covering everything about Fullmetal Alchemist. But, as it stands, you're merely misleading the readers. Since I doubt anyone is actually bothering to read my comments before responding, mention if you've read this sentence. I think you'd have a far easier time taking the first of the two options, but the second is possible, if you're actually willing to put the work in.
 * I do wish you'd actually read the detailed analysis of what I see as the problems, and respond to it, point by point. Long story short, even without the structural issues, this would clearly fail GA. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The nature of anime and manga does not lend itself well to creating separate articles for each media type because of the large overlap that exists between the source material and its adaptations. The difference in the first anime's plot would not be sufficient enough reason to split all of the anime information into its own article, especially when it would result in an underdeveloped article. This is why, in lieu of having a separate and quite unnecessary "franchise" article for most series, the media information that would appear in such an article is simply merged into a single, main article that focuses on the original material, and also provides information related to its adaptations, and any production and reception information for the series. This is why the topic is introduced as a manga and not a franchise: because the series would be nothing if not for the manga. There is nothing about this structure that goes against Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and you seem to be the only one voicing concerns about it. And there is nothing against merging a franchise article's general structure into another article if the information can be adequately provided in a single article.
 * Furthermore, it's pretty confusing when you first say "whilst GA may not look at the overall structure of groups of articles" and then later on say "It fails to use appropriate spinoff articles". So which is it? Judge this article's content for what's on the page, not what articles link to it.
 * And then you mention criterion 3a and bring up "critical analysis" and "discussion of themes". Well, going by WP:WIAGA, it states that the GA criteria "allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail" and does not necessarily require the "comprehensiveness" for FAs. Setting aside the fact that some of the analysis for the series is already in the current reception section, there may not be reliable sources readily available for a more detailed analysis and/or discussion of themes, but while these things may be required for an FA, it certainly is not required for a GA. The fact of the matter is, the article merely needs to "address the main aspects of the topic", which I believe the article already does: it discusses the plot, production, media types and reception. Again, comprehensiveness is not a requirement for GA.
 * And I've already addressed some of what you said about the copyedit and referencing, and I still think they're minor issues that could easily be fixed if actually given the time to address them. Amazon.com and its variants have been used to reference release dates in the past in a variety of articles, and has been brought up at WP:RS/N a number of times, but when no other source can be found, it is used as a last resort.--  十  八  00:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's try this a different way, since this seems to keep coming back to the same points, when the other ones not being discussed are surely enough to fail GA over. Here is a list of all, or at least most, of the  major points I think this article fails, feel free to comment after each point, in fact, I would prefer you did, since I cannot see how this does not fail if even a few of these points remain. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * A. WP:LEAD - linked to from Criterion 1, says that the lead should be a "concise version of the article" that "briefly summarize[s] the most important points". Whilst the anime is at least mentioned in the lead, the points about it covered are mere trivialities - a dry listing of distribution and production companies. This cannot be considered a summary of the most important points. [WIAGA 1] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A-1 Further, it contains factual errors - Bones produced the second anime series, but co-produced the first one; the lead states instead that they produced both. [WIAGA 2] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A-2 Noone would ever expect that this was the only article on Wikipedia where the first anime's reception was covered, since the anime is not mentioned until the second paragraph. That's poor writing. [WIAGA 1] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * B Trying to follow any thread in this article is made very difficult due to poor structure. For example, discussion of the animé takes place over four different sections ("Differences in the first anime adaptation", "Production", "Anime series", "Anime reception". [WIAGA 1] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * B2Particularly in "Anime reception", this article does a terrible job specifying which animé is being discussed. [WIAGA 1] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * C It's just not very well-written. Impenetratble sentences like "As the plot continued, however, she felt some characters were maturing and decided to change some scenes, resulting in some sketches of the faces of the characters being improvised." or weird sentence structures such as "as commented by Viz to avoid references to Christianity." abound. I think one of these was fixed, but they're just examples. A complete copyedit is necessary. [WIAGA 1] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * D It has several citation needed tags; in addition to the ones already there, there were bits in the lead and infobox that don't appear to be cited. [WIAGA 2] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * E Several references are to the various branches of Amazon.com, and one is to this page on About.com, which is, at the very least, a dubious source. [WIAGA 2] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * F The plot summary section seems dubious from the view of original research, since it makes statements about the anime following the manga up to a certain point, then diverging, which seems like it should need a citation. [WIAGA 2] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * G If this is meant to be an overview article, it fails to present itself as such. The lead fails to set up the structure of the article, so, while main points may be there, they aren't particularly accessible by users. [WIAGA 1, 3a] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * H Summary style is linked to from WIAGA 3b, and thus forms part of WIAGA. This article goes about a strange variant of Summary Style that usesspinoffs that are extremely specific lists, meaning most of the content that would, in a normal article move to a subarticle have nowhere to go. [WIAGA 3b (Summary style)] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * H-2: A list of episodes of the anime is not a substitute for an article on the anime when it means you have to leave lengthy reception section on the anime, amongst others, standing completely inappropriately in the manga article. A sane spinoff would let you move most of the anime discussion to the article on the anime, giving a good, tight overview article on the manga. [WIAGA 3b (Summary style)] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I: You could either spin the anime and other adaptations out to focus on the manga, or you could attempt to make the article put information on the manga together, information on the anime together, information on the light novels together, etc, rewrite the lead to begin "The Fullmetal Alchemist franchise began as a manga, and has been adapted to..." and have what you actually seem to want, an article covering everything about Fullmetal Alchemist. But, as it stands, you're merely misleading the readers. I think you'd have a far easier time taking the first of the two options, but the second is possible, if you're actually willing to put the work in. [WIAGA 3] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * J: The more you look at and check this article, the more problems spring out; as such, it's unlikely this could be fixed in any reasonable timeframe. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * K: You yourself agree this fails WIAGA 1 and 2. Is there any point having this discussion before these are fixed? Even if the structural points are ignored, it has tags, and needs a full copyedit, so it doesn't matter if you agree with me on the structural issues or not, this cannot be restored to GA status, making this argument pointless. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Pyrotec
This seems to be a "simple argument" over whether a "failure" result at a GAN/GAR was justified. In such cases, there are two choices one is to open a community reasssessment (which was done here); the other is to fix the problems and renominate at WP:GAN.

Adam Cuerden is right the article this morning has citation needed flags, but looking at the article's history they were added in 5th September 2013 and they seem to have been added by Adam Cuerden. I've had a quick look at the lead and for a start I believe that it lacks neutrality, it reads more like a "sales pitch", for instance: ".... has enjoyed exceptional sales of 50 million volumes sold as of 2010" (its now 2013 so that is somewhat out of date); and "Reviewers from several media conglomerations had positive comments on the series and it remains an all-time favourite amongst Western and Japanese readers." (all-time favourite is hyperbole, the word "popular" could be used its more neutral). The article as it reads today is non-compliant, perhaps only marginally, but I doubt there is any case for overturning the last GAN Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist/GA2 as being flawed (the article appears to be non-compliant).

It is going to take some time to work out whether the last review was flawed, but I suspect that this community reassessment may well result in no action being taken, it's probably unlikely to result in a relisting at GA-level. At best, its going to result in a list of more "problems" that need to be addressed. There have been cases were a reviewer has added citation needed  during the review and then used the present of these flags as a reason for failing the article. All that happened in those cases, was that the reviewer got criticised. The articles had to be "fixed" and renominated at GAN.

There are arguments above over whether the lead is compliant with WP:Lead and/or a WikiProject Lead guidance document. WikiProject guidelinks don't over-ride Good Article requirements, but they can be taken into account in deciding whether the scope of the article is "right". So, trying to argue that the lead is compliant with a WikiProject Lead guidance document is irrelevant.

So, think about what is the main aim of this reassessment, is it "reviewer bashing" or gaining GA-status, perhaps its a bit of both? As, I stated above, I doubt that this community reassessment will result in a "listing" verdict, but it is likely to result in suggestions of how that article can be improved so that its more likely to get through GAN at its next nomination. Pyrotec (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, there was a citation needed tag from before and to after the end of when I did my review; this was fixed during this community review, but while discussing things for the community review, I think yesterday morning. In the middle of this review, and I believe before the original citation needed was fixed,, I found the additional citation issues.
 * I apologise for any confusion over this point. Articles can easily represent a moving target, and it can be difficult to keep your aim focused precisely. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's OK. If there is a genuine desire to progress this "suggestion" that your review was flawed, then I will re-review the article as it existed on 3rd September 2013. Its a lot of effort and I don't think my results, i.e. that article is non-compliant with WP:WIAGA, will be different from yours, but I may well come up with different "problems the need fixing". However, the reviewer has a choice of three options: "list" (in this case "Keep"), "don't list" (in this case "delist") or put the review "on hold and await corrective action". Since I've not reviewed it I can't pre-judge whether I'd choose a "hold" in preference to a "delist". I suspect that it would not be a straight "Keep", since there appear to be problems that need fixing. Pyrotec (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with some of the comments here, while the adjectives used are similar to those used to sell a product, the works are indeed very prominent and iconic, dropping the adjectives wouldn't hurt at all though. As someone who knows the original material the problem is more basic for the GA criteria. The plot of the manga and not of the anime, movies or novels. The section for the first anime is fine, but the wording is weak and it is lacking in some major aspects that could be handled better. The last line "The story concludes in the film adaption Conqueror of Shamballa." does nothing for me as a reader. Production is lacking and missing Brotherhood and is unbalanced with manga production. The media section is what I expect for a topic overview of the page, while I'd prefer less release info in place of a better summary it is not too pressing if a detailed page exists. As it stands there is no such page. Some of the music issues have chronology issues that make it confusing, i.e. "The music for Fullmetal Alchemist was composed and arranged by Michiru Oshima, who won the 5th Tokyo Anime Award in the category "Best Music" for Fullmetal Alchemist the Movie: Conqueror of Shamballa." This leads you to believe the movie was first and the music for the anime was made after. Zero plot or story summaries for the video games, which have their own pages, an oversight here because it only consists of five titles. Reception is the problem, it divides the manga and the anime and novels, but it should give the full picture of the reception of the whole work including the general response to the games. The way it is broken up would be perfect for individual pages and they give the feeling of being tacked on and providing no feeling of the "whole". Also missing would be the themes found within the work and the cultural impact. While not important for every individual work, I'd expect this as a topic overview at the minimum. Yes, some of it is in the production section, but it needs to be dedicated in my eyes. Cultural impact is a big one, with Super Comic City having 1,100 doujin circles doing Full Metal Alchemist. Avoiding such material violates the broad criteria. Even in terms of pure content, the article is woefully inadequete. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem with the production is that author and the staff barely released material about the creation of the series. If I were to find more I would gladly add it but I can't do anything if it's all in Japanese. Also, I haven't been able to find anything about Super Comic City and I'm also not sure whether the few things I found are reliable.Tintor2 (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because you can't find sources in English means that an article can be of GA status; Wikipedia GAs need to be both broad in coverage to cover what is known and I already have several books with go in deep detail about this. Another glaring oversight is the OVAs... but I'd be willing to overlook some small things because only FA is comprehensive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Wait, you know books about Super Comic City and FMA? So could you give me a hand with that because I don't possess anything about it.Tintor2 (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Easy source. As for more I can give you online on this, none. The doujin matter is more Japanese centric and I got additional materials in books. I just spent some time fixing Persona 4 to renom it, but I still need the books for FMA and maybe some Japanese ones to really fix this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Progress
This needs to be closed as failing or promoting to GA still. It seems to have really boiled down to structure preference. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 05:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the reason it was opened for. And I don't think that this can be repromoted to GA without a full GA-style review to make sure it actually passes the issues it failed before. And there's a lot of dodgy sourcing still. For example, take citation 86, http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/detailview.html?KEY=SVWC-1034 - this is used to talk about how the CD includes "several of the background sounds used during key points in the main series and the first opening and ending theme songs" - I don't think a mere track listing can possibly source that; that's interpretation of what the songs are. The objection I have is that every time I spend a minute looking at this, I find a fairly major problem. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm now closing the community reassessment with a "not listed" outcome. There was no overwhelming evidence produced here that the original review was "flawed", so the status quo is to be maintained. The last review, WP:GAN, produced a "not listed" outcome and I'm keeping the current status of "not listed". I would suggest that the way forward is to improve the article and renominate it at WP:GAN, preferably in view of the outcome this GAR after undergoing a WP:PR first. I wish the article well. Pyrotec (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)