The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 29 February 2020 [1].
This article is the sequel to Balfour Declaration, which achieved WP:FA status in 2017. The Mandate for Palestine was the document which made the Balfour Declaration a reality, inventing the state which became modern Israel and the Palestinian territories, and in an adjacent set of events it also invented the state which became modern Jordan. The article illustrates the competing political dynamics during 1917-23 which led to this outcome, and shows how the borders of these countries were negotiated from scratch. No other online resource comes close. The mandate was formally allocated by the League of Nations on 25 April 1920, so I am aiming to get this article to WP:TFA on the centenary on 25 April 2020. I am grateful that the article has undergone a thorough GA review by FunkMonk and others, and has been copyedited by Miniapolis at the GOCE. Like the Balfour Declaration article, this article has many important quotations set out in the endnotes, which serve to maintain the stability of the article in this highly contentious topic area of Israel-Palestine. Onceinawhile ( talk) 10:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I will comment here as I go along. Constantine ✍ 16:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
That's it for now. The article is well-written, well-referenced, and very informative, and I don't see any major obstacles to it getting the FA star. I will definitely need to re-read it a couple of times with a clearer head though. Constantine ✍ 17:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Background
Assignment to Britain Palestine
Addition of Transjordan
Drafting
I have a number of questions specifically about the sub-section "1921–22: Palestinian Arab attempted involvement:"
Oppose-I'm sorry but I do not think that this is FA quality right now. It is clear to me from my comments and what was identified by Sarastro1 that the article contains plenty of good information but at times is convoluted and ambiguous. In addition, my comments have been posted for nearly 10 days and only one of them has been addressed with no explanation for the inaction. I agree with Sarastro1 that the article would benefit from a copyedit by an unvinvolved editor, especially one who is an expert in the topic, which I admit that I am not. I recommend peer review as a possible solution. Display name 99 ( talk) 01:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a substantial article on a complex and difficult topic. As such, the nominator deserves congratulations. The down side is that reviewers can be a little reluctant to wade in, especially as there are over 8,000 words (which I have absolutely no doubt are necessary). I've made a start, and it looks good overall. I've checked a couple of sources, which looked ok to me, but at some point I may do one or two further checks. From a first look, I do wonder if this would benefit from a copy-edit from an uninvolved editor; there are a few parts that are difficult to understand and other parts where the prose might benefit from a massage. Content-wise, it looks good so far. I'm not an expert on this at all, and most of what I know comes from studying this in history for GCSE a loooooong time ago. So overall, maybe this needs a touch more work, but I have no major concerns so far. Here's what I've found over the last day or two, as far as the start of the "Addition of Transjordan" section. Sarastro ( talk) 20:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Sarastro ( talk) 20:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to try rewriting a section to show you how I would have written it (the one entitled "British Parliament"):
This nom appears to have stalled and we're nowhere near consensus to promote, so I'm gong to archive it. As well as addressing Sarastro's unresolved comments, I'd suggest working with the reviewers, if they're willing, outside of FAC to improve the article prior to another nomination after the usual two-week waiting period. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot ( talk) 28 February 2020 [3].
This article is about... seriously this is a class C article at best. don't attempt Almaty ( talk) 09:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm closing this - entirely too much editing going on to even begin to be stable. -- Ealdgyth ( talk) 17:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 15 February 2020 [4].
This was at FAC a few months ago, but owing to some prose issues was archived. After some delay I've fixed it up, and had a second person go over it (credit to @ Giants2008:). So now I'm here again, and will be ready to address any issues. I'll also ping the other reviewers from the first FAC: @ Nikkimaria, Kosack, Canada Hky, and SandyGeorgia:. Kaiser matias ( talk) 17:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Comments – As stated above, I cleaned up some things in the article, although I don't offer a warranty that I got everything. There are a few items I noticed in the process that are worthy of consideration:
Leaning oppose on sourcing: I did some spot checks on "Early Life" and found several issues. (I used Cyclone Taylor: A Hockey Legend by Whitehead which is available to view at the Internet Archive "library") I suspect many of these are minor, or simple errors, but one or two seem to me to misrepresent the source slightly. Additionally, I found each of these issues in just the first two paragraphs. Even if they are minor issues, it concerns me greatly to find so many in such a short section. I stopped after the second paragraph. I'm inclined to oppose this outright, and would require considerable reassurance that the remainder of the article does not contain similar issues before even thinking about looking at prose. I'm open to reconsidering if someone can explain how the source supports the claims - part of the problem may be my hockey ignorance. Sarastro ( talk) 09:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
As well as noting the concerns above, I see there hasn't been any activity by the nominator for ten days, and this suggests there won't be any for a while, so I'm putting this one to bed. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 15 February 2020 [5].
This article is about an important event that oddly didn't have any Wikipedia article until last year. This unfortunate episode in Slovak history occurred when its German-allied government deported most of its Jewish population, actually paying Germany for the privilege. It is a pair with List of Holocaust transports from Slovakia, currently at FLC. The article recently passed A-class review and has been copyedited by GOCE. Thanks in advance for your comments. b uidh e 15:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Three weeks without a review? That's not a good reflection on us reviewers, (although the difficult subject matter may be the reason behind that). I'll be along shortly to make a start. - SchroCat ( talk) 08:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Done to the start of Anti-Jewish measures. I have only general knowledge on the history of Mitteleuropa at the period, so I am reviewing on prose and readability only. More to come. – SchroCat ( talk) 09:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Done to the end of Forced labour; more to come. – SchroCat ( talk) 21:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
denounced non-Jews perceived as sympathetic to them as "white Jews", engaging in antisemitic demonstrations on a daily basis" This reads as if the so-called "white Jews" were the ones taking part in the antisemitic demonstrations – I think it needs a little tweak to clarify.
More to come shortly. – SchroCat ( talk) 20:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
In November 1941,[93]": I'm never a fan of citations immediately after just a few words. A citation should cover all the information in the text from the previous citation. In this case "November 1941" is meaningless without the text after the citation. Move it to the next one to cover both parts of information in two citations.
Acting on behalf of the Vatican[204]": ditto my comment on the November 1941 citation
Done to the start of "Hiatus". More soon. This is well written and covers (from the point of someone with no detailed knowledge about the history) everything I would except to see in such an article. It's difficult to get through in places, but that's because the subject matter is appalling, not because of the prose. – SchroCat ( talk) 13:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Final comments...
Nazi authorities were eager to murder Slovakia's remaining Jews before the Red Army advanced further into Poland; Auschwitz would shut down its gas chambers in November 1944" The two halves of this sit a little uncomfortably next to each other, with the meaning not totally clear (partly because I don't think you've clarified anywhere that Auschwitz is in Poland). I think I know what you're getting at, but it could be rephrased a little better.
The neo-Nazi[394]" Ditto on my earlier comments about refs after a few words
That's it from me. I hope these help. - SchroCat ( talk) 14:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! b uidh e 16:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
While I read, can I ask that you go through this article and put the refs in numerical order? There seems to be a lot that are highest number first. Cassianto Talk 21:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
The source cited for "File:Karte Slowakischer Nationalaufstand 1944 - Aufstandsbeginn.png" is the sort of thing needed.
More to follow. Gog the Mild ( talk) 23:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
An excellent article. Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Nb, it is my intention to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.
Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I would like to add a couple of comments to the review, mostly on rather trivial issues. I wrote The Holocaust in Belgium and certainly defer to the author for having produced a much better article here!
My comments mostly relate to the lead - and I would refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. I would make the following points:
I would also make some more general observations:
Just a few comments, then. Overall I think the article is very close to FA status! — Brigade Piron ( talk) 11:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
On May 29,1940, the Slovaks signed an agreement according to which theGermans were to receive 120,000 Slovak workers. On June 17, 1941, Moravek wrote a letter to Tuka in which he reported on a discussion he had had with Wisliceny and another German (Erich Gebert, an economic "expert"), saying that he had offered to the Germans Jews for labor in Poland or Germany.7 In the late summer of 1941 the Germans demanded 20,000Slovak workers, and Izidor Koso, head of Tiso's and Mach's chancelleries,again suggested that the Germans should take Jews instead (see below). In the autumn Tiso and Tuka went to see Hitler and Himmler, and Tuka asked Himmler for help in taking the Jews out of Slovakia. There, too, the Slovaks learned of German plans to "liberate" Europe from its Jews—exactly how they were not told, except that the Jews would somehow be "settled in the East."8 In October they agreed to have Jews with Slovak citizenship living in Germany deported along with German Jews "to the East."9In January 1942 the Slovaks said they could not send Slovak workers;10however, they again offered 20,000 Jewish workers—to Sager, the representative of the German Ministry of Labor.
— Bauer 1994, p. 65
Propaganda used and misused many stereotypes including the above mentioned notions of poor Jewish immigrants arriving from Galicia and becoming rich inn-keepers shortly after their arrival, stereotypes of Jews who allegedly abused Slovaks for their own personal profit... state propaganda emphasized a pre-supposed right of Slovaks to confiscate all Jewish propertiesThe background also references
the stereotypical view of Jews as exploiters of poor Slovaks, which has multiple sources that could be cited. Kubátová and Láníček 2018 discuss the Jew "as exploiter" on pp. 26, 32–3, and 43–4. As "stereotype" more closely matches the sources than does "popular view", I edited accordingly.
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 15 February 2020 [8].
The Bank War was an important sequence of events during Andrew Jackson's presidency and a significant topic in American economic history. When Jackson became President of the United States in 1829, the Second Bank of the United States was an extremely powerful institution that had enormous influence over American economics and politics. It was more powerful than today's Federal Reserve. Jackson believed that the Bank was corrupt and unconstitutional. He wanted to either significantly diminish its power or destroy it entirely. When his political opponents turned his dislike for the Bank into a political issue with which to defeat him for reelection in 1832, Jackson launched an all-out war to decimate the Bank's influence and ensure its collapse. He was successful. The economy did very well during Jackson's presidency, but his war on the Bank is sometimes cited as a factor which led to the Panic of 1837 just as he was leaving office.
NOTE: This is the third time in about the last six months that the article has undergone a featured article nomination. The failure of the article to gain promotion the previous two instances was not because of any opposition to it but because it could not attract enough reviewers. I fervently hope that enough people will come by to review this article this time around so that the question of whether or not it meets featured article criteria may be decided. Thank you. Display name 99 ( talk) 17:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Quick note -- Hi, I've just removed the definite article from several headers as they were discouraged by MOS last time I checked. I left The failure of compromise and war only because removing "The" might make worse what seems to me to be poor grammar, i.e. we're technically saying "the failure of compromise and the failure of war", where as I assume we mean "the failure of compromise, leading to war" -- so perhaps you can come up with something better there grammar and MOS-wise... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Maury This is a new topic to me so I'm coming at it fresh. It's quite fascinating, IMHO. Most of what I see is minor:
Sorry, that's it for now, more to come. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 17:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
That's about it for now. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 14:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I am willing to look at the use of sources, semi-randomly (based on source availability), for this FAC. This will likely take me a while, and my goal is to check 8-12 footnotes. (If this review is "not required" in the way that I am doing it, could someone at FAC let me know. I never understand why the focus is on reference formatting instead of use of sources; or if there are "exceptions" for people with prior FAs; and if so, which parts of the source review (content or presentation) they're exempt from.) The footnote numbers are based on this revision. I will only use the green text for quotes from the article. My results will be below, feel free to insert under each bullet point. Outriggr ( talk) 07:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Outriggr, thank you for your helpful comments. I have responded above. Display name 99 ( talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately we're once again sitting well past the two-week mark without any support for promotion. Normally we'd archive at this time but I'm holding tight for a few days since this is attempt three. I've added it to the Urgents list. -- Laser brain (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello Dudley Miles. Thank you for your review. I have implemented several of your suggested changes already, but am a bit busy and will need a little bit more time to get to all that you have suggested so far. Please give me a few days. Thanks. Display name 99 ( talk) 18:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello Dudley Miles. I'm going to go through and address your comments, but first I want to point out a few things. Firstly, I do not think it is true that the article is based off of writers who are largely hostile to Jackson's views. In fact, it's the opposite. Remini is moderately pro-Jackson, and Schlesinger and Baptist heavily so. These authors are cited widely throughout the text. Authors Hofstadter and Howe, who are also widely cited, aren't pro-Jackson, but they do criticize Biddle for his obstinancy and using the Bank for corrupt purposes. Hammond is the only author cited here whom I know to be decidely pro-Biddle and anti-Jackson. Anyhow, I am happy to address your comments, including the ones alleging POV, and I intend to do so over the next few days. I think that it would have been more helpful if you had waited to see how I would respond to your concerns and only opposed if I had not agreed to make changes. I think that I might be able to persuade you to change your vote, but I ask for time to respond to your comments. Display name 99 ( talk) 19:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Dudley Miles, your latest comments have been addressed. I know that it is a long article and I am grateful for your assistance here. Display name 99 ( talk) 19:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry but this has been open more than six weeks and I see no prospect of it gaining consensus to promote anytime soon, so I'm going to archive it. It would be useful if Dudley could continue to work with the nominator on his remaining concerns before any future nomination. I'd also strongly recommend reconsidering the response to Maury's comments; if Maury still expresses concerns about the language in the article then I'd say the thing to do is, rather than take umbrage, request further examples and see if you can't work together on those items. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot ( talk) 10 February 2020 [10].
It's not often a corked wine ends up with three days of rioting, ninety dead and a grudge between town and gown that still lingers, but that's what happened in Oxford in 1355 on the feast day of St Scholastica.
This article has been re-written from a rather slim version to a more complete version we have now. Any and all constructive comments are, as always, most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 20:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||||
Support from Gog the MildI gave this a fairly thorough going over at PR. Let's see what else I can quibble over. Two weeks ago I was in Oxford drawing the attention of some of today's students to this article. They were impressed. Apparently even the roughest of drinking disputes no longer lives up to, or down to, this standard: the benchmark for tavern brawls.
NB, it is my intention to claim points for this review in the WikiCup. - Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Support from CassiantoMarking my spot. Cassianto Talk 16:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Looks fine
Looks fine That's all from me, an interesting little article. Cassianto Talk 17:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Support from SN's corner of the proles' barIs this another of those FACs that ends up with a cast bigger than Ben Hur ;) Will be looking in tomorrow, to make sure you've got the Battle of Hastings in somewhere (as essential background, you know). —— SN 54129 20:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Support
|
Sources
|
---|
|
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (my emphasis). As is rather obvious, we reach or imply no conclusion here. Just because two pieces of information come from two separate sources, it does not mean there is synthesis.
Returning to the point: Somewhere above the wall of text that has appeared, SchroCat replied to me. In terms of where to put about the sources, I'd say after the aftermath, in its own section if we can squeeze out enough information. The more specific we can be about who said what in those sources, the better it would be. If there is nothing on historiography, there is nothing on historiography, and we can't include anything unfortunately. Sarastro ( talk) 16:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Reply to Fowler&fowler: With the greatest respect, this constant back and forth is not helping anyone and it is certainly not establishing if this article meets WP:WIAFA. If you believe it does not meet them, it would help if you simply said so, explain briefly on what grounds, and leave the rest to the coordinators.
You said to me "We do have some public records, of course, but it is not clear that Twyne and Wood have used these" but I do not understand what that has got to do with anything. My question to SchroCat was about the actual literal primary sources that everyone else has used to discuss these events, as I believe we should discuss them in the article. Nor do I understand what you mean by "And if we are going to use Wood, where do we draw the line?" as your example is a non-sequitur. And I still do not agree with you about synthesis, but I'd be hugely appreciative if you did not explain to me here why you are right and I am wrong.
And although I don't want to reply to your every point: "If no modern source has details of the dispute, then we cannot use 300-year old sources to fill them in. We are not talking about using such a source for names or direct quotes, but for the description of how the event unfolded. That is as important as its interpretation, for the latter is based on the former." Once more, I cannot see how your second argument follows from your first. But to take your first argument... that may be something worth raising at WT:FAC. I disagree, I have never seen that argued elsewhere, and I'd need some convincing. It may be worth asking the opinion of others. If you wish to take this further, can we please discuss it away from this FAC? My talk page is nice and quiet. I repeat, please don't argue every point here as it just clutters the page and is not relevant to whether this article meets WIAFA; I am happy to argue elsewhere. Sarastro ( talk) 16:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
In fact, I'm inclined to say we should move most of this back and forth to the talk page where it is out of the way (and I include my above ramblings in that). Sarastro ( talk) 16:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Also - older works need to be used with care - EVEN for plain facts. While there are some exceptions, most Victorian historians do not approach history with the same rigor that more modern historians do. And this also applies to their ability to sift fact from fiction in their sources. Many a Victorian historian took forged documents at face value and built their narratives on something that has later proven to be contentious or downright wrong. (The classic example here is Gundrada de Warenne - where uncritical acceptance of forged documents means that prior to the late 1800s, most folks accepted that she was either the daughter of William the Conqueror or of William's wife Matilda. We know now that this is incorrect - but it STILL pops up all over the place ... and if you aren't familiar with the sources and the historiography - it's very easy to uncritically take a history from the 1840s, say, and repeat a disproven fact.) I strongly strongly strongly suggest that we should not rely on 19th-century sources, even for filling in details, because it is important to dig into WHY more modern historians aren't repeating the information - has it be proven wrong? Or embelished? Or is it some other reason?
Likewise, it's a bad idea to use newspaper articles to source a history article on wikipedia - frankly, the ability of newspaper writers to get history wrong is boundless. The fact that wiki policy allows us to use 100-300 year old sources or newspaper articles doesn't mean we should. We're trying to write the most accurate and up to date articles we can - which should be built on modern scholarship. If the fact that you can only flesh out an event by resorting to those sorts of sources, then things are not good.
I'll also point out that F&F pointed out that one at least of the book sources has at least one very bad review in a schoarly journal - THAT needs to be investigated also - is that one review an outlier? Or do most scholarly reviews pan the work - if that latter, then we again, should not be using a work for a historical subject that is considered bad scholarship by historians. Wycliff is a VERY well-studied subject in history - surely there is a better biography of him to use?
My point here is that ... again... we cannot just uncritically say "policy allows us to do this" and think it's fine. It isn't nearly as cut and dried as that ... and we're doing a disservice to our readers if we just do the minimum without actually trying to understand that the best practices would be to avoid usage of some sources even if policy on wikipedia seems to allow them. We're supposed to be writing the best we can... and that doesn't always mean including everything guidelines and policy might allow. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
As this is still awaiting closure I'll add a brief note for the record. There are six supports to this article and no opposes, yet I am still requesting withdrawal.
Sourcing: The older works (pre, say, 1930) cover the more graphic aspects of the riot and then looked at the after effects; the modern works are very perfunctory in dealing with the riot, but are more detailed in looking at the impact. For each part of the article the most recent and reliable sources dominate where possible. It should be noted that at no point do any of the modern sources contradict the older ones on the points that are used in this article. Despite the implication from a recent posting at the FAC talk page from someone who has no clue about my approach to article development, the majority of the sourcing was done during visits to the British Library.
Reviewer conduct: Sadly this article deserved a lot better than a troll bludgeoning comments across several sections and bringing a toxic battlefield attitude to this review. I note that the pattern continues elsewhere. This was the third review on the trot when this aggressive pushing of personal preference causes a disturbance; they were asked by Ealdgyth at the last review not to do this and by Sarastro (on their talk page) in relation to this one, all to no avail. You are able to judge on all three reviews where the problem lies: interactions with all other reviewers, over comments positive and negative, show the good faith in which those contributions were made by both parties. Only in one area did they break down.
I still request this to be withdrawn, and I will still be declining to participate in all aspects of FA-land for the foreseeable future. To clarify: this is not a threat to say 'pass this or I won't write FAs anymore': I really do not care about the FA process. All enjoyment has been sucked out of this increasingly politicised process with the second-rate interventions of a very small number of people intent on moulding FA into something it is not and was never meant to be.
Ian and Andy, as you are the only non-recused co-ords here, it will have to be you that closes this. Thanks – SchroCat ( talk) 09:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 8 February 2020 [11].
This article is about the fly Dryomyza anilis, with a significant portion of the page focusing on mating behavior. I underwent a rigorous round of edits to improve the page to GA status, and believe that it is a realistic candidate for FA status. I am absolutely open to hearing any and all feedback to improve the page. I also believe I have successfully incorporated edits from my first FA nomination for this page (I incorrectly nominated the page for FA before going through the GA process). AnuBalasubramanian ( talk) 20:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Coord note -- Hi, just to be clear, there's no requirement to go through GAN before FAC, but getting as many eyes on an article as possible before FAC, whether through GAN, Peer Review, or just asking people, is certainly useful. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 21:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello AnuBalasubramanian: I can help you with the lead, which seems short for the article's size. I will get around to that in a day or two, but I couldn't help noticing the language, which seems a tad too technical. Would you consider wiki-linking some of the unfamiliar words so that someone like me, a rank beginner, can take a stab at summarizing the text into the descriptive prose appropriate for the lead? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Just looking at the reference list...
Sorry - I know these comments are frightfully dull, but this is the sort of thing that needs to be gotten right at FAC. I have to oppose until these things are sorted, but I'd be happy to withdraw my oppose and take a look at the rest of the article once the sourcing issues are resolved. Josh Milburn ( talk) 21:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC) For the record, I'm taking part in the WikiCup. Josh Milburn ( talk) 21:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The above notwithstanding, impressive work on the images for a first FAC.
Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, it's been well over a week since the first comments and no response from the nominator, plus I think the sourcing concerns Josh raises are probably best sorted outside the pressures of FAC, so I'm going to archive this. Aside from the suggestions above, I'd again recommend, per Brian and Laser brain at the previous FAC, considering a mentor for a future nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)