![]() | This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. | ![]() |
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is currently a GA, it passes all of the five criteria listed
here, and some more input for FA would be appreciated. Any suggestions and requests for improvement are welcome. —
MC10 (
T•
C•
GB•
L)
22:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets all of the criteria, but I'd also like to see how it would fare further up the chain. As far as I know, this article covers everything I've been able to find in english-language sources. I suspect there would be more in Norwegian, but I can't find them, let alone access them. I've also scoured my sources for anything on the liberation of Norway, and found very little I could add for context - it seems to be one of those areas very few historians are interested in.
Skinny87 (
talk)
08:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
SupportComment - some prose work is needed:
The research, sources and images look good, but the prose needs a bit of polishing. (Note, I edit conflicted with Dank, so there might be some repetition here). Dana boomer ( talk) 14:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments Most of the grammar is to my satisfaction to be honest (post adjustments highlighted above), so only 2 comments to make really:
Otherwise I think its great (but I would say that as I passed its GA!). Ranger Steve Talk 20:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Oppose Article is POV.
I would characterize this article as significantly biased toward the British POV. There is no description of the German forces in Norway beyond a count and commander. Their distribution (geographic and military-hierarchical) is not given at all; even the major units (like, I'm guessing from 5 minutes Googling, 20th Mountain Army) are not identified. This should include at least a brief accounting of what those forces were expected or ordered to be doing before the surrender arrived (defense? suppression of dissent? preparing a new offensive of some sort? withdrawing to Germany proper?)
Lesser issues:
It's a decent job, Skinny, but you've only told part of the story. I'd be somewhat surprised if there aren't sources to tell at least some of the other side's story. Magic ♪piano 18:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Oppose
No consensus to promote at this time. EyeSerene talk 09:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Prior nom here
I am listing this at A-class review because it has failed a previous A-class review and I feel I have met all the concerns raised there. WikiCopter ( radio • sorties • images • shot down) 22:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Of the first seven concerns I brought up at the FAC, one has been removed and the other six haven't been addressed. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Closed without consensus to promote -- Ian Rose ( talk) 10:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comments
Comments It's great to see so much work has gone into getting this important article back towards FA status. I think it needs a bit more work to get back to A class though, and my comments are:
As a few more comments:
Comments Just a scan of the article turns up some questions:
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it is close to A class and I am eventually hoping it will reach Featured Article class. Any suggestion for improvement welcome.
Kevin Murray (
talk)
14:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
Above all thank you so much for taking the time to help me here and leave this excellent advice. Cheers! -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Questions and comments
Oppose per usual disclaimer. I don't disagree with the many positive things said above, and I'm sure we can massage this into an A-class article in time. Here's a list of some of the remaining problems. Other good sources of information on what we're looking for are in previous A-class reviews and edit summaries.
'Discussion of pre-dreadnought section'
Dank has made some very good points, all of which have been addressed, except several having to do with one pivitol paragraph, which was added after the article reache GA status, much of which was taken out of the lead, which seemed to be bogged in detail. Dank's comments are restated here for clarity: --
Kevin Murray (
talk)
02:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
This is my first military history article, and I'd like to bring it to FA status. I just archived a
Wikiproject:Military History Peer Review. It's up for
WP:GAN simultaneously. It's now a Good Article. --
Rmrfstar (
talk)
20:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
Comments
Comment I have to support Sturmvogel this should not be up for GA and A class reviews at the same time. I was going to start the GA review but could not see the point as its up for A class. -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 12:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has gone to GA, and I feel it meets the requirements for A.
WikiCopter
Radio
ChecklistFormerly AirplanePro
21:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
Comment
I believe A Class is possible but some work still needed. -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 08:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
No consensus to promote at this time Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Prior nomination
here.
Along with a few other editors, I've been working on this article for a few years now and intend to nominate it for FAC soon. However, I would like an A-class review from this wikiproject beforehand to make sure it is ready for FA. The article's been a GA since 2009, but didn't pass it's initial A-class review in 2010. Since then, all the concerns of the previous reviews have been addressed, the article has been substantially expanded with new material and sources, and many parts have been rewritten/reorganized. Although it's still quite large (after all, Nasser was arguably the most monumental Arab political figure of the 20th-century and ruled Egypt for 16-18 years), the article's prose has been trimmed down to around 80 KB. It's second peer review (and a thorough copyedit from WP:Copyeditors) was concluded a few weeks ago and there has been additional followup at the talkpage. I looked over both the A-class and FA criteria, and believe the article now meets them both. -- Al Ameer ( talk) 00:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
It's a massive article, so might take me a while to get through it all! First pass comments. That said, it doesn't seem overly long for such an important figure.
Will add more later. -- Errant ( chat!) 10:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Image check
Comments -- I'll try and do a full review at some stage. In the meantime, you have a series of Harv errors, which you can check by installing this script. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Source spotcheck -- Sorry for the delay, I've ended up doing a further spotcheck myself as my preferred candidate for the task was unavailable; note that I've had to restrict myself to publications available on preview at GoogleBooks...
My conclusion from the above and from a few instances during my general review when accuracy or paraphrasing of sources seemed in question is that, while I haven't discovered major problems, there are enough niggles that I think you need to walk through the article and double-check sourcing/paraphrasing yourself before submitting for FAC. I realise this a daunting task in such a large article, and you may not have added and sourced all the material, but when you nominate an article for ACR or FAC you're taking responsibility for its prose, structure, coverage, image licensing and referencing, and any problems associated with them. By the way, while I was spotchecking, I noticed a few more style points:
Subject to the above style points being addressed, I'm still happy with the article as far as prose, structure, coverage, and supporting materials go but I can't help feeling that a more comprehensive spotcheck, which I can't supply, would reveal more things that need finetuning. I reiterate that this article is a great undertaking and, I think, deserving ultimately of A-Class and FA status, but I just can't support it all the way at this stage. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 13:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments. Feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk)
Result was no consensus to promote at this time. EyeSerene talk 08:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I belive that it meets all of the requirements. The architecture section was expanded shortly after the article passed GA, so there might be some problems regarding prose & grammar in that section.
Kebeta (
talk)
17:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
Thanks AustralianRupert for your review, any new remarks on improving the article are appreciated. Kebeta ( talk) 11:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Thanks Doug for your thorough review. I am actually glad for you being too harsh, because I want to improve this article the best I can, and any remark is appreciated. Please try to understand that I can't compete with professional English required for Featured article criteria. I will try to implement all your remarks, but you can also edit the article by your self. I don't own the article. I am glad that you find the content of this article fascinating, and I hope that the wiki community will bring it one day to a Featured article. Regards, Kebeta ( talk) 09:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Hi TomStar81! You raised some good questions here, and I will try to explain them the best I can. Regards, Kebeta ( talk) 11:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn at nominator's request - MBK 004 05:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Second nomination, the previous A Class Review is
here.
The article has subsequently gone through a Good Article review and was promoted and a peer review. Hopefully it has been improved enough for an A-Class article. Thanks, GregJackP ( talk) 21:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 04:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the subject is of major military historical importance and warrants A class treatment. The article has been greatly updated since last review and now includes fully referenced historical and technical details & relevant images.
Rcbutcher (
talk)
05:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
-- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 13:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm nominateing this article for an A-class review because I belive that it meets all of the requirements. It's a fairly nice article and well sourced but it is small. There is not that much info for the Habsburg class battleships. Like the other ships in the AH navy, they just sat in Pola or Trieste for all of WWI exept the bombardment of Ancona. Any comments are welcome :)--
White Shadows
you're breaking up
21:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because
User:White Shadows asked me to do so. Comments would be nice.
Buggie111 (
talk)
18:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
Comments
where is this going? Auntieruth55 ( talk) 16:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have put quite a lot of work into this article, and I am prepared to extend or do whatever to get this article to A-Class. I also believe that this process is more efficiently run than if I nominated this article for Good-Class. Thanks and Have A Great Day!
Lord Oliver
The Olive Branch
02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Oppose. Oliver, I can see that you've worked very hard on this and appreciate that you'd like some quicker feedback than you'd get a GA review. May I suggest you withdraw from the A class review and try peer review first? I'm going to leave some suggestions on the talk page. While you've moved considerably further than a stub, this article needs a lot of help. As I understand ACR, it's for articles that are considerably further along than this. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 22:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Oppose I'll second Auntieruth55's comments. There's a lot information here, but the prose quality needs to be improved considerably to satisfy A-class standards. I'd recommend a peer review/GAR before bringing it to ACR. Furthermore there are a lot of MOS problems. Notably lack of place of publication for the references and capitalization problems. All of this stuff can be worked through, but this is not the place, IMO.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Anyway, that is it from me. Regarding the "opposes", have these been addressed, or do they remain? Cheers. — AustralianRupert ( talk) 14:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it recently passed
WP:GAC, but could use further refinement.
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
19:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Anyway, that is it from me. Good work so far. Cheers. — AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Oppose
For example:
Among those that Cleveland filmmaker White interviewed to make the film were 13 of the Tuskegee airmen. Several of the Tuskegee Airmen were from the northeast Ohio region. [1] I still don't understand if he interviewed Ohio Airmen, or this is just an extraneous bit of information. One of the veterans interviewed was Colonel Charles McGee, who had served in WWII, the Korean War and the Vietnam War and whom White said had more combat flight hours than any other American. [1] (and....? so what. What did he say? Why is this important to include?) Colonel Charles McGee, who had served in WW2, KW, VW, and whom White said had more combat flight hours than any other America .... was he a TA? From hereThe film was shot in Billings, Montana. [2] The film was produced to help increase awareness and elicit financial support for The Red Tail Project. [3] The film was produced by Cleveland-based Hemlock Films, which is White's production company. [4] It was underwritten by the Parker Hannifin Corporation. [5] to here doesn't belong in this paragraph. Tell us more about the interviews in this paragraph. Then you can give us stuff on the production. this whole paragraph needs rewording The film was inspired while White was filming The Restorers, after a P-51C Mustang landed for refueling and White met Doug Rozendaal, the pilot of the Red Tail Project's Tuskegee Airmen plane. When White heard Don Hinz had been killed in a crash of that very same plane, he felt compelled to do a story focusing on it. Once he got involved in the project, a local PBS station committed to airing the final product, which was an early step in the successful development of the project. When researching the film he noticed a lack of resources about the Tuskegee Airmen and felt driven to fill the void. [6]
White was filming
The Restorers in XXXX, when a P-51C landed at the airport for refueling. What attracted him to the plane In conversation, Doug Rozendaal, the plane's pilot, told him that the well-known Don Hinz, a restorer and P51 affecionado,or something had been killed in a crash of that very same plane. White was inspired to tel the story of the plane, the Airmen, and Hinz. While researching the project, he realized that the Tuskegee Airmen story had not been told. Gradually, the story came together: the plane, the Airmen, and Don Hinz. An Ohio PBS station agreed to air the film.
RTRPBS
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Promoted EyeSerene talk 09:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...
Renomination. Was nominated back in April by myself and another editor as part of an effort to improve the overall quality of Medal of Honor articles. I am the major contributor though. I believe that all issues have now been addressed.
Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it might meet the relevant criteria. The article has been
reviewed by
MBK004 (
talk ·
contribs). I'm unfamiliar with the review process, however. There are probably a number of ways that the article can be improved, and the review may help to find and pursue them. One problem (criteria #5) is that few, if any, images are available about the event itself.
Cs32en
Talk to me
20:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
I'd like to draw your attention to the section "Alleged link to Pakistani intelligence agency". I have some thoughts about how to handle it, but I would very much welcome input from outside observers. Cs32en Talk to me 02:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
AustralianRupert ( talk) 05:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review. It's the first time I've written an article of this quality from scratch and it made GA without any difficulty so I'm hoping I can take it further. All feedback and any suggestions for improving the article are most welcome.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts?
11:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
reply
Support - I don't see anything jumpin out. There are a couple references in the lede, which I seem to remember is typically frowned upon but other than that nothing major. -- Kumioko ( talk) 03:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has been certified as a good article for some time now and, now that he has died, I feel that all the resources have now surfaced for this article to meet the criteria. As Canada's final surviving veteran of World War I, he was not only an important historical figure for the country, but the final link to one of the largest military conflicts in human history. Cheers,
CP
05:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel that it meets the criteria for an A-level article. (
GregJackP (
talk)
00:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC))
reply
Just a few things you might like to consider. Cheers. — AustralianRupert ( talk) 23:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC) reply
AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Anotherclown ( talk) 11:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply
To everyone: I really appreciate the help on making this a better article. Thanks, ( GregJackP ( talk) 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)) reply
Oppose - sorry, but I just do not believe this article is quite comprehensive enough for an A-Class article. I think it leaves to many gaps about this man's life, and the reader is still left with some unanswered questions. I think this perhaps should have gone to Good article nominations first. My suggestions for improvement are:
Overall, this article is rather good and I'm sorry to oppose, but, as I said, I just do not believe it is quite comprehensive enough for A-Class as it currently stands. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 01:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply
For convenience, I am listing the objections of Abraham, B.S. from my user page.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel it may be close. Please let me know how to improve this article further. Comments, suggestions are appreciated.
MisterBee1966 (
talk)
10:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
Oppose Comments
-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC) reply
I am concerned that no effort has been made to use the 2 volume LG 1 history by Peter Taghon, ISBN 3-925480-88-9 and 3-925480-85-4, to resolve some of these issues regarding LG 1's activities in '44-45. And exactly what unit Helbig was assigned to in September 1939. And the almost total lack of personal information, to include when Helbig got his commission, does not meet the standard of reasonably complete at this level and for this period. One or the other might be acceptable since this isn't a FAC, but both together do not incline me to support a promotion.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply
After completing his training as an observer and aerial gunner in April 1937, he was posted with III. Gruppe (3rd Group) Kampfgeschwader (Bomber Wing) 152 "Hindenburg" in Schwerin. III./KG 152 "Hindenburg" became II. Group of Lehrgeschwader 1 (1st Demonstration Wing) on 1 November 1938
Is this not clear MisterBee1966 ( talk) 16:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it is an important topic and meets most if not all of the criteria. I'm not sure of the protocol and currently have another article undergoing review at the moment and apologise in advance if this offends anyone. That said I have used the comments from
First Battle of Maryang San to improve this article so hopefully the points raised during that ACR should have already been taken care of. Thanks again.
Anotherclown (
talk)
23:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
reply
Article promoted Nick-D ( talk) 11:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC) reply
First nomination
Second nomination
This article failed two ACRs in 2009 and 2010 due primarily to issues with sourcing, when I was a much younger editor. Since then, I have completely reformatted the sources, eliminated almost all of the online refs, rewritten most of the prose, diversified references and basically redone the whole thing with my greater WP experience. It's ready for round three. — Ed! (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Support
Stating that discussion of the early militia in the original four states is not discussion of the division, is to me like stating that discussion of hydrogen and oxygen is not discussion of water. National Guard units are usually not the product of a start from scratch, but rather are usually the product of the combination, recombination, or elimination of existing elements. In this case, the territorial volunteer militia units are the direct antecedents of the regiments that would be combined to form the division--litterally the division's origin. I cannot conceive of an origin description that leaves them out. As is, only the militia of Oklahoma is directly mentioned, which in a discussion of today's brigade might be appropriate, as a discussion of the division this is an unwarranted lack of ballance. RTO Trainer ( talk) 21:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Currently, the article states: "During this time the division was also reorganized and as a part of this process the 157th Infantry was removed from the division's order of battle and replaced with the 279th Infantry Regiment.[89]" The cite is Varhola's Fire and Ice, history of the Korean War. Either Varhola has this wrong, or the reference has been misunderstood (I don't have a copy of this book to check). The reorganization that replaced the 157th with the 279th occurred in 1946. This is supported by the Lineage and Honors of each regiment, reproduced on the respective regiments' pages: 157th & 279th. In addition there is no reorganization listed in the 45th Brigade's lineage and honors in 1950. RTO Trainer ( talk) 21:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Perhaps the answer to this is a new article, or a new section on the National Guard of the United States page that can be referred to--would be useful to others. The Guard is unique in it's many duty statuses. RTO Trainer ( talk) 21:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Italy Curent statement: "One of the first National Guard units activated for the war, the 45th fought in the 1943 Italian Campaign, seeing intense fighting during the invasion of Sicily and subsequent attack on Salerno." Fighting in Italy covered 4 official campaigns. Perhaps the plural should be used in the article. RTO Trainer ( talk) 23:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment. I spent a while working on just the first two paragraphs, see if that works for you. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... after having this article peer reviewed twice, and following all the suggestions and advices given by the reviewers i felt confident that it meets the requirements. Regards.... الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 22:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 20:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 11:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... after having this article peer reviewed twice, and following all the suggestions and advices given by the reviewers i felt confident that it meets the requirements.
Regards....
الله أكبر
Mohammad Adil
20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 23:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 22:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC) reply
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 20:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The Muslim forces laying siege to the city had been weakened by this withdrawing of men (9000 in total). First with the departure of Raafe's detachment and then the reinforcement of the Mobile Guard under Khalid [broken sentence]. At this point, if the Byzantine army attacked in strength against any Muslim corps guarding the gates, there would be a serious danger that they would break trough [sic] and
so uplift[lift] the siege.
Unsuccessful in breaking the Muslim lines, Byzantines retreated back to the fortress. The wounded Thomas is said to have sworn to take [a] thousand eyes in return.
YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 04:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The Muslim forces laying siege to the city had been weakened by this withdrawing of men (9000 in total), first with the departure of Raafe's detachment and then the reinforcement of the Mobile Guard under Khalid (inserted comma instead of full stop, broken sentence fixed). At this point, if the Byzantine army attacked in strength against any Muslim corps guarding the gates, there would be a serious danger that they would be successful in breaking the siege. (sic fixed)
Unsuccessful in breaking the Muslim lines, Byzantines retreated back to the fortress. The wounded Thomas is said to have sworn to take a thousand eyes in return. (this sentence probably need only an article i guess)
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 20:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 21:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... after having this article peer reviewed twice, and following all the suggestions and advices given by the reviewers i felt confident that it meets the requirements.
Regards....
الله أكبر
Mohammad Adil
20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
i didnt get it, plz explain. الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 23:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 20:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 11:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 20:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 21:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 13:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I've recently created the article and think it's pretty good. Any advice would be helpful. Thanks
DemonicInfluence (
talk)
22:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
Oh, I didn't know they didn't run simultaneously because I'm pretty new. In that case, please close this. Thanks DemonicInfluence ( talk) 22:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply
TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Thanks for reviewing, TomStar81. DemonicInfluence ( talk) 06:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I've taken it as far as i can, and I think it now gives a comprehensive and intelligible explanation of the subject.
Cyclopaedic (
talk)
20:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
Oppose – sorry, but there are just too many issues with the article at present. In addition to those noted above, I have the following comments:
Although this article does require a bit of work yet, please do not be discouraged and I hope you will continue to develop the piece. If this assessment does fail, I would recommend all of the above comments be taken into consideration and the article can be re-developed from there. After this, you might like to submit it for a peer review. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 04:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply