Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/James Joyce/archive2

Article stats
FAC Nominator User:Filiocht. Authorship stats (as of 4 December excerpted below): Top editor stats (as of 4 December excerpted below):
 * Wtfiv	86.7%
 * Filiocht 1.1%
 * Kablammo 0.8%
 * Wtfiv 	23.9%
 * Kablammo	18.4%
 * SandyGeorgia	14%

Stats excerpted 4 December, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

FASA nominations
Please set up separate sections for each nomination.

FASA nomination Wtfiv
I nominate User:Wtfiv to receive a FASA award for James Joyce. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * apologies for using you as the test case, but you are a well-deserved test case. WP:FASA is now live; although Z1720 and I entered our "supports" before the page went live, they are sincerely and ever-so still applicable!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's all good. Thank you, .  I am honored you appreciated the  work! And more so, I really enjoyed getting to know some of the FAR editors better! Wtfiv (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion Wtfiv

 * 1) Support. Wtfiv is almost single-handedly responsible for the Featured article save of the bronze star for James Joyce in November 2021. As the stats show, this article that was featured 17 years prior was essentially rewritten by Wtfiv, over a two-month period.  Wtfiv completed the work with good cheer, and should be proud of the result! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support After scrolling through the article history, I see that the bulk of edits, including adding sources and information, was conducted by Wtfiv. This user was not the FAC nominator. Z1720 (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support — absolutely incredible. Aza24 (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support — without question. Wtfiv is allowed hubris and carrying a big head on top of them for a few weeks ;) Ceoil (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Wtfiv took on a giant task with good cheer -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 11:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - absolutely. Impressive work. Well done, Wtfiv! Victoria (tk) 21:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) Just learned about this program, happy to support! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Older discussions
Moved from FAR page:
 * Process discussion

, Wtfiv has massively reworked this very old FA, and it could benefit from some extra eyes. I haven’t yet had a chance to glance at it … but anything that any of you could add would be most appreciated, and then I will dig in. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Sandy; have been following all the (frankly amazing to watch) work on an individual edit by edit basis, without concern. Will give overall status review towards end of weekend. Ceoil (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * wonderful … and I just noticed that Victoria is in there already also! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, my first thought was that it might be better to continue the FAR, delist if necessary, continue with a full reworking and then take to back through FAC, diff. On thinking about it I changed my mind, because there's an enthusiasm there that's nice to see. There was a brief followup, here. No one else chimed in. I watched closely early on, not so closely since early-to-mid-October when I had to be out for a week or ten days. While I was watching, the work I saw was impressive. My sense is that is in the zone, so to speak, which I respect and in my view would be counterproductive to interfere until they've finished their work. At that point MOS issues, formatting, image placement, prose, and so on can easily be addressed. I haven't read closely, but will when the work is finished. Hope this helps. Victoria (tk) 14:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Victoria … my take is the same. I was initially concerned, but now that I have had a chance to look at the work, and hear from others, I think we have a winner here, and am most pleased that Wtfiv is on board.  There is still some work to be done, and an independent copyedit would be good, but we are on the way here … Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support with this, and for keeping an eye on what I'm up to. I'm pretty close to done with the laying down of prose.  I'd love it if someone else would expand the lead to incorporate the new material.  I think it mainly involves adding a couple of paragraphs catching the new additions, and catching a bit of copyediting and language.
 * Sandy, thanks for copying editing. I hope you don't mind that I will copy your comments from here to the Joyce talk page and address them as I go. Wtfiv (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, — I was editing from iPad last night, and didn’t want to push the extra buttons. Best Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, my advice is to keep doing what you were doing so well before this conversation started and wait until you're finished to polish. It looks as if you were working on the politics section and very much in a zone. I would love to see you continue the work, because it's been a joy to watch. Once you're done, post here or on the Joyce talk page and others can pitch in to help with nitpicky things, prose, MOS issues, etc. Also regarding the lead: it might be best for you to sketch it in since you've been up to your eyeballs with sources and are at this moment the most immersed in the reading. Anyone can then help with copyediting. I say this because I always wait until I'm finished with the body to write the lead, and am not good at writing leads. Victoria (tk) 23:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I'm done with the major prose additions. I think your idea is a good one. Building the lead is fairly straightforward as I just abstract what has been built.  I just wanted to toss out the option, particularly to, as its clear that there's a commitment to the project and I want to make sure the original voice and view are preserved. It could also add a nice collaborative sense to the project. But if there's no, takers after a few days, I'll gladly take it on.  And, I'd be delighted if others could help with the MOS stuff. I know it is necessary, but its not my forte. (I had made a number of changes Sandy had recommended and found out I had overwritten them. No problem redoing them, but it just illustrates that its not my strength!)  Again, thank you so much! Wtfiv (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello FARC committee and FA quality checkers. Would it be appropriate to take the James Joyce article off the FA Review list and leave it with its FA status? I think the issues raised by HAL333 on 11 June 2021 have been addressed: I hate to do it to the great James Joyce, but there are some problems here that need to be addressed:
 * James Joyce FARC closure?
 * The reference formatting needs to be standardized.
 * References have been standardized to sfn, sfnm format. I used multiple sources for three main reasons:
 * To provide multiple perspectives on the same point. Most sources draw different implications from the same report.  Readers may find this interesting.
 * Reveal that a statement is ambiguous. Sometimes different authors report the same event quite differently.
 * To show that more controversial points are not the idea of a single author. For the controversies, I tried to maintain sources from both sides.


 * Some of the cited urls don't seem to be RS.
 * Almost all of the approximately 222 sources are scholarly ones or by major publishing houses. The weakest, in my opinion, are the seven online news articles and the two magazine articles, but they fall under WP:RS.
 * As per my practice, as many sources as possible are one-click verifiable and the full source potentially accessible via free registration:
 * Out of 222 sources, 152 are fully accessible via the maximum restriction of registration. (About 2/3)
 * Live-linking the page citation, allowed respecting the Wikipedia guideline that a link means the work is accessible. Sources that are not fully accessible have no links, though their page citation will have a link for verifiability.
 * Two non-accessible sources could not have page-link verification. In these two cases, a direct quote of the relevant passage is provided after the page number in the citation. (I thought both sources were worth listing for anyone doing their own research on the topic.)
 * Two citations come from the same indirect source. Both were in the original article, so I preserved them. They are quotes from an Arthur Power book by Ellmann. The relevant page numbers in Ellmann are linked in both citations, and Power is attributed.


 * The article doesn't rely on any recent academic work on Joyce.
 * Much of the added material is from last 40 years, and goes up to 2021. I also added much older sources, as they are often closer to the source. In biography, its become clear to me that the vast majority of the recent material is really based on the old.  I'd guess that 80% of the biographers' material- Bowker, Davies, O'Brien, Costello, Gibson- is really a rewording or recontextualization of Ellmann.  Sometimes the pre-Ellmann sources provided richer insight.
 * Admittedly, the very latest academic material from the last couple of years is more spare, as these are locked behind paywalls. I don't think this is a major problem because:
 * Being locked behind paywalls, readers can't confirm the citations anyway. Unconfirmable citations have a higher probability of being incorrect, mismatching information, or presenting an over- or under-emphasis, which can't be evaluated or corrected by the interested reader.
 * The Joyce industry is busy, but most of it is focused on critical analysis and not biography, and so it is mainly reinterpreting the texts, which would go in the articles on the respective works.


 * The article is also a little short, clocking in at around 35 kb.
 * Ironically, this has been addressed. I advocated that "short" is not bad and I'm into keeping it that way.
 * I tried to navigate close to the original article in the first third.
 * But fleshing out the remaining 2/3 of Joyce's life (the post-Dublin years), ended up making the article long.
 * The main body of the article stands at 9309 words; references at 8658 words. (198kb)
 * Though it wasn't part of the review, I also did a first pass at adding appropriate images so the article didn't look just like a string of words. Though better ones may replace them, I think they incidentally added a new flavor to the article and gave it a different feel that seems aesthetically coherent.

Given all of this, I think the issues have been addressed. As always, there'll be the need for more MOS repair, citation repair and verification, rewording, editing, and the usual Wikipedia impassioned staking of positions. I also acknowledge that the lead needs to be extended. I'm imagining that just a few paragraphs near the end summarizing the new material is all that is needed, but that wasn't listed as a major FARC concern and the material in the lead remains supported by the article. For the next week or so, I'd like to see if others feel inspired to take it on, but if not I'll address that later in my role as a interested editor.

But for now, I'd like to optimistically suggest that the article as it stands has been made a bit more presentable and can be allowed to return to the FA cotillion suitably well dressed and without carrying the notice of potential expulsion.

Regardless of your decision, I'd like to thank the FARC for allowing the extension, and also for the regular watchers and editors who have been supportive with the project. Wtfiv (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, Wtfiv ... the usual process here is that, now that you are done, give others some time to go through and note any other remaining concerns. That way, when the FAR is closed, it becomes (Hopefully) as good as a new FAC :)  This may take some time as editors are busy ... Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the rush here, it seems we are all on your side, and that this is likely to be kept (per my own and I suss Victoria's leanings) after some further polishing. This stuff takes time though Wtfiv, bear with us; I personally am exponentially delighted to see Joyce being potential saved, and trilled at all the improvements on an article have watchlisted for 15 years, but would prefer it to close at 100% rather than 90% perfect. Hold tough!! Ceoil (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm very much in the "no deadline", no pressure camp, for Wtfiv or for anyone else. If only to prevent edit conflicts, there's no sense to have five people editing at the same time, or even two. I'll take a look when I can, but my time is very limited and my editing is sporadic (to say the least). Will get there when I can. Victoria (tk) 20:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm delighted to see you doing the editing. I'm in no rush, as I don't think it is "done",  and please keep at it!  I don't think it is anywhere near finished. Not knowing these processes and seeing that this is still FA anyway, what looks like a rush is just my desire to get it off the "endangered species" list. I think I mentioned when  discovered the changes, that I felt I was nearly done with all but the lead and the politics section.
 * It's also obtain some personal closure by letting the FARC team I did my part to address HAL333's concerns, wrapped up my major contributions to content, and will be stepping back from my volunteering to lead as an unofficial FAR recovery editor. (Part of it is also notice is something VictoriaEarle picked up on: That although I will do a round or two of MOS and grammatical infelicity edits, which I feel was part of my responsibility for volunteering, I feel I've fulfilled that role, and am wanting stepping back from being asked to do more as others can catch and fix them too. (I do think Sandy's MOS comments were invaluable though.  That is exactly what what I was looking for- something like a quick GAN-style MOS review.)
 * I'm now an invested editor in the article, so I'll be staying active with it, monitoring it, and collaborating in wrap up and maintenance. (And, if anyone wants me to pitch in on something I've missed, ping me). But, again, not knowing the process I just wanted to make sure that if there is agreement on the major issues being addressed and the FAR is headed toward closure. Thanks!  And again, I'm so glad to see your active edits as well!
 * I just caught 's comments. I think we're in agreement.  My previous posts can be read more succinctly as saying I'm done with my initiating role, and I'm just saying I'm ready to step back and let others be the "more active" editor. It sounds like turn taking is important. Its exciting to see the editorial investment in the article again! After all, Joyce is still a major figure in European literature.
 * As an aside: I am curious as to how the FAR recovery process is informally tracked and decided, but that's probably a post for elsewhere. Wtfiv (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * At this stage, you taking a rest and letting others give non substantial MOS type edits is fine, and for sure well deserved. I get the impression you are stressed by earlier comments by Buidhe etc, but their view is not the majority. I can put together an expansion of the lead perhaps tomorrow for review by the team here. Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Buidhe and the FAR team have been great and I'm glad for their support. But yes, the break would be good as I have wrapped up my major goals, and more importantly, I was hoping for more active collaboration on the article, which you, Victoria, Kablammo, Rogermccart have given! And, it bodes well for the article in the long-term.  It looks like we are on our way!  Wtfiv (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi I explained early on in a talk page post that I'm basically not active. That's still true. I tend to fade in and out, but just to be clear, I can't be relied for ... well basically for anything. It is important that the final 5% is finished as Ceoil expressed above, and because you've done all the heavy lifting it's difficult to see how that's possible without your participation. Not sure what to say at this point. I was pinged to this page some few days ago, but other than answering talk-page queries, being in a situation that require full copyedits and where  MOS compliance is needed throughout an article is impossible for me because of real life issues. Just to repeat - there is no deadline. Or there shouldn't be a deadline. Perhaps the FAR coords can confirm. Victoria (tk) 01:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I get it...nobody's obligated to take this on... in a sense, I just want to see the community around this article and make sure it is where they want it to be. Copy editing is one way for that slightly closer eye.  And so, thanks for what you have done.  You've and Ceoil have been on top of it today.  If the lead remains in any incomplete state for a few days, I can take care of it.  Except for the myriad of typos and infelicities, I feel lead building is usually pretty straightforward, as it usually just falls out of the article.  And for this article, the front end of the lead is done.  I'm just seeing if other (written) voices are there to be heard and taking a breath. Wtfiv (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to worry, Wtfiv. It seems that the pace is frustrating you, but the pace at FAR, unlike FAC, is very slow and deliberate.  FARs are never closed while improvements are happening.  Also, many of us have worked together for years and we know each other’s strengths and weaknesses.  Everyone knows, for example, I will go in and do a MOS cleanup after Victoria and Ceoil have been through content.  We don’t like to get in each other’s way; we all know to update this page when we’re ready for more eyes. Please do not worry; the process is working at exactly the pace and in the way it is supposed to. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ya, and for full disclosure, myself and Victoria go back over a decade on this website and have done a bunch of FA stuff together, so the world is smaller than you might imagine, at least in this case, at least for for a lith pages. I think all of us want to get it to where were we can wrap up, so think days rather than weeks. It goes without saying that there is a lot of gra for what you have done here, now we are down to literally crossing the T's. leaning Keep, with full Support hours away. Ceoil (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think what I appreciate most is that you were out there to begin with! And I'm enjoying watching you all in action, together in synchrony!  I get the feeling that its been a while since you've worked together on this article.  So, I think the 's call to action has had many positive effects- at least from my perspective. Wtfiv (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Re the lead, I wouldn't stress too much. Look at Britannica and other first google returns, and cover the bases they cover. As it stands I don't like how his education locations is the entire 2nd paragraph, though do like it gets in his father's drinking habits. Drafting a lead for an article this size should be easy; its all referenced below, so you can shoot of the top of your head. On a personal note, thanks again for all the work here! Ceoil (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * SandyGeorgia resolved comments

I am still seeing missing pps here and there — this is not a significant issue, but, could you give it another look as you find time? No hurry, and certainly not urgent. Here is a prose issue, of the type that I expect Ceoil and Victoria will fix before I settle in for a full read: I suggest looking at User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing and User:Tony1/How to improve your writing (Tony1 was once the prose guru at FAC). Decided occurs several other times in the article, and is often redundant— but in this case, the word is used in two consecutive sentences. When using the word decided, we need to know if he just did it, or just intended to do it. Instead could also be redundant. Words like “thereafter”, ugh. As an example of how this might be rewritten to be more direct and less redundant (don’t take my word for it, because my prose stinks :) Do we know what French school he was taking classes in? Do we know why he gave up these plans? Ellman says he may have been discouraged that his French was inadequate, while Joyce himself said the decision was financial. I am not a prose guru, so no need to adopt my exact wording, but we are at a good stage to being looking for how to reduce fluff and redundancy. Best regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Joyce graduated from University College in October 1902. Thereafter, he decided to study medicine[41] and began attending lectures at the Catholic University Medical School in Dublin.[42] When he learned that the medical school refused to provide a tutoring position for him to pay for his education, he decided to leave Dublin and study medicine in Paris instead.[43] By the end of January 1903, he had given up plans to study medicine,
 * Joyce graduated from University College in October 1902. He intended to study medicine[41] and began attending lectures at the Catholic University Medical School in Dublin.[42] When the medical school refused to provide a tutoring position that would help finance his education, he left Dublin to study medicine in Paris.[43] By the end of January 1903, he had given up plans to study medicine,
 * I changed the prose as per suggestions. I added a fairly lengthy dependent clause to address your points, mentioning by the school and subjects, along with an Ellmann citation.  In general, I try to avoid Ellmann's implied attributions of Joyce's motivations. In this case, Ellmann implies language, I think the original article implied his lack of knowledge in the sciences, it could have been money.  Or even, just a young person overwhelmed with a new city. Ellmann is the final "go to" for the facts, though.
 * Looks good; did you review the other instances of "decided"? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , something got wonky here: "When the medical school that would finance his education, he left Dublin to study medicine in Paris," ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My mistake trying to implement your suggestion. I just tried to fix the "fix". Please feel free to change any prose as you see fit. That way I won't muck it up. Wtfiv (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how to use this referencing system, but there is also something wonky here (86 to 82): Davies 1982, pp. 72–73; Ellmann 1982, pp. 86–82. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Typo, should be 86–87. Fixed.
 * All good, 20:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * More pps (I have not worked with this citation format before, so don't want to attempt these fixes myself): Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Davies 1982, p. 135; O'Brien 2000, p. 42–43.
 * Bruni 1947, p. 39–40; Ellmann 1982, p. 214; McCourt 2000, p. 76.
 * Bowker 2012, p. 204–205.
 * Bowker 2012, p. 214; McCourt 2000, p. 196–197.
 * Beach 1959, p. 36–38; Bowker 2012, p. 276–277; Gibson 2006, p. 134.
 * I went through the p/pps minutes before your last post, and just fixed the ones you caught. You can see that this level of copy editing is just not my strength, but if you point them out, I'll fix them.  And, I find that for articles I oversee, I'll constantly "graze" and fix what I catch.  But this process illustrates where I think I'm strong and where I'm not.  And, please do not hesitate to rewrite any "fluff", which is a reader unfriendly artifact of my trying to keep the narrative/citation relations coherent while drafting.  I'm not overly attached to my Wikipedia writing style, so please change anything you see fit.Wtfiv (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good. ( Did you check other instances of "decided to"? ) I am not a good one for rewriting; my prose is not at the level of other editors here, and I am more comfortable pointing others at prose issues (unless they are just so obvious that even I can fix them :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a good example of style. I suspect you are very good with the prose! If you see the problem, you know the solution and I'll trust you! There were four decideds. I went in and removed two that clearly violated Tony1's maxims. For a third, I changed decided with the synonym considered because Joyce "decided" to study medicine, but it seems clear to me that he didn't really study medicine.  He just attended some lectures or got permission to do so in Paris  (It's not clear he even attended the Parisian ones.)  In this case, decided or considered leaves Joyce's actual action indeterminate.  I kept the last decided for when Joyce determined to make "Ulysses" into a full-sized novel instead of a short story.  This is Trieste.  He hadn't done it yet. He just wrote about doing it. He would get started in full in Zürich.  In cases like this, I am very comfortable with you creating another construction that is more reader friendly.  And even if it changes my perceived nuance of meaning, no problem.  It's better that readers have a positive reading experience with clean prose. Wtfiv (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Caught one present tense decide, which I changed to thought. Joyce thought he had been swindled when he found no work in Zürich, but the evidence is unclear whether it was a swindle or just a miscommunication between the agent in London, who did reply to Joyce's enquiry in Zürich, and the Berlitz schools, whose managers did some fairly shady things (like advertise Joyce as having a doctorate.) Wtfiv (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why prose is better left to someone who knows the story and has all the sources! "Decideds" done.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Honing in on one sample paragraph that has several kinds of prose redundancies and wordiness. (Unlike the current version of FAC, where some reviewers like to pull articles through with line-by-line prose analysis, I prefer to offer samples so the main author can comb through the rest of the article for similar, before continuing my read-through. User:Tony1/How to improve your writing has very helpful hints for all FA writers!


 * Suggestion (only): start each para with Joyce, and switch to he later in the para.
 * Words like also and additionally are almost always redundant.
 * I can’t decipher the meaning of the first sentence, which gets lost in wordiness.
 * Why do we need “at one point”?
 * Is there a significant difference necessitating available money instead of just money?
 * He was able to continue in spite of surgery and money problems, so the however could be a nevertheless?

Not a prose guru; just some ideas for reducing wordiness and removing some redundancies, and a sample of the kind of work that could be reviewed throughout before we undertake final read-throughs. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Another to consider:


 * Reduce proseline feel of every sentence starting with time context.
 * He actually moved almost a year after the War started.
 * Hate “broke out”
 * After … after … twice in three sentences.

Just ideas— Ceoil and Victoria are better at prose than I am. Apologies for missing italics on books— iPad makes them difficult. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a bit of image cramming near the top. I really like the Newman house photo as it gives a flavor of what University College was in Joyce's day. (Joyce was not going to UCD as it is imagined or something like an Oxford.) But it looks crammed where it is. I was thinking it might look better moved left?  Or maybe some juggling with the 6-year-old Joyce or the "birth certificate". Do you think it'd be appropriate delete the certificate as isn't really a historical document from Joyce's time, but part of the Bloomsday centenary celebration. I left it to respect the original article.  (Maybe the birth certificate and the 6-year-old image can be moved up?)  Thoughts?  (If deleted, a footnote referencing may have to be deleted. That's no problem.) If you are good with it, please delete and move.  If you'd like it to stay, that works too. Other thoughts?Wtfiv (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * let’s hold off on final image placement until lets us know if all of the images comply with image policy … if we lose any images, that will affect our decisions on layout. I am willfully ignorant of image policy, as it scares me to death :)  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Wtfiv (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)