Talk:Flag of convenience/Archive 1

Archive 1

Loss Statistics for FOC

Article states:

"Casualties are higher among FOC vessels. In 2001, 63 per cent of all losses in absolute tonnage terms were accounted for by just 13 FOC registers. The top five registers in terms of numbers of ships lost were all FOCs: Panama, Cyprus, St Vincent, Cambodia and Malta."

This statistic is meaningless as it is not qualified with what proportion of international shipping uses a FOC. If, for example, most of the world's shipping is FOC, then it would be reasonable for them to account for most of the losses. Either the statistic should be put into context or removed. --Ade myers 17:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty much verbatim from http://www.itfglobal.org/flags-convenience/flags-convenien-184.cfm under the heading "Unsafe". I couldn't (easily) dig up any background to the statistic so I'm in favour of removing it, too.

--Andreala 13:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

General tenor

Agree with preceding comment about statistics (will try and get some better data and rationalise the stat). I was also concerned that the tenor of the article was strongly anti-FOC (which is a view held by the ITC) but ignores the very much pro-FOC approach of the shipping industry and the financial markets. --Colinriegels 13:48, 10 May 2006

It isn't merely the ITC that's against FOC. Consumer agencies in the US, at least, have been quite against them, as cruise ships have held Bahamian and Liberian registries and been implicated in low sanitation standards on board, if not fraud. Additionally, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, as well as the WWF, have taken a stand against the FOC for the overfishing of areas, as well as the otherwise-illegal fishing techniques. I'm not sure, therefore, that there is very much need to change the tone of the article. So far as I can see, the dim view is attributed to its sources, and NPOV doesn't mean "balance" or "no". It means dispassion and avoiding judgment. The judgments are all, as far as I can tell, made by non-Wikipedians -- they're reported, not provided. Geogre 13:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

ITC does offer a more balanced view of FOC than parts of the above comment. ITC does maintain a blacklist of companies (and individuals) that seems to hide behind a lax FOC for their own benefit (abusing either conservational laws, labour, etc.), but it doesn't put forward the notion (which the article seems to border) that all FOC are modern day "pirates"... --Andreala 13:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a rewrite

Certainly there are FOC - flags of convenience -- that are no good, but the seas are not the free for all that the author is depicting. While the IMO deals with technical aspects such as the safety of life through SOLAS and pollution through MARPOL (among other things), labour laws are done through the ILO

There are a number of reasons why companies choose to register with foreign registries, usually because of cabotage law such as the Jones Act, taxation schemes and nationality requirements. However, through both international conventions which Bahamas, Liberia etc. are party to, the principle of no more favourable treatment (where ships of nations not complying are treated to the same standard) and port state control, this does not mean that ship are any worse off than if they were registered in a first world country. Having served under a number of flags, I believe there is very little difference between the various regulatory environments.

The author’s views are not entirely unreasonable and I would like to rewrite the article to include those views. But, as I mentioned, registering in a tax efficient location is not synonymous with poor standards, a point I cannot make too often.

I agree, I think it needs some love and a bit more balance. If you look at ship financing transactions for the acquisition of new build hulls, the bank syndicates will often require that the vessel be flagged in a FOC country because they prefer the enforcement regimes for admiralty matters in those countries (particularly where the shipowner is based in a country with underdeveloped maritime laws). Scarcely consistent with cowboying if the bank wants you to park a $30M asset there. The other point that is worth mentioning is that FOC countries are not the quasi-pirates that they are sometimes made out to be. The British Virgin Islands (which would be classified as a FOC country, albeit not a very large one) has been recently trying to upgrade its status to a Category 1 registry and the procedure involves a massive tightening up of applicable labour laws, inspection regimes and environmental regulation. The image of cowboy regulators is probably historically accurate, but it is starting to look a little dated. It is also becoming less relevant as more and more maritime nations regulate vessels according to port and geography, or just straight pan-global liability, rather than flag,[1] for example the US OPA 90.[2] Just my 5¢ worth. Legis 15:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• I would suggest that everything after the first three paragraphs could be re-worked or removed. The present article ignores the regulatory requirements of underwriters (ABS, DNV, Lloyd's) and International Maritime Organization which control everthing from environment to fire fighting. These are applied to vessels internationally independently of where they are flagged. Signatory countries will refuse access to their harbours unless their own regulations and the IMO requirements are met. I fully support a re-write. Jmvolc 12:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how far this article has been rewritten but it still has many questonable or wrong statements outside the Opposition/Support sections where I suppose the partisan perspectives belong. I would suggest following to the editors:

INTRODUCTION: (a) Add end para 1 "Flags of Convenience are also known as Open Registers." [mentioned in History]. (b)There needs to be note that here there is no commonly-agreed definition of a FOCs to adequately differentiate them from other national registers. For example, a very large number of registers permit the registry of a vessel owned by foreigners (some require a local legal ownership company, while some do not - indeed, within the EU it would be illegal for a national register not to allow registration by shipowners from elsewhere in the EU)(The ITF’s definition is developed for its own purposes). One of the underlying problems is that it is very difficult to define the “nationality” of a business, especially for international groups with subsidiaries in many countries For example, Cunard Line has been owned sequentially by Kvaerner of Norway and now by Carnival, whose head company is a Panamanian corporation with operating companies in the USA, and Cunard has operating companies in the USA and UK – through all these changes the registered owner of the QE2 has been a British-registered company.

BACKGROUND: (c) For the reasons at (b) even a general statement such as "half the world's tonnage of merchant ships were [was!!] registered under flags of convenience" remains subjective. The para might begin "A substantial proportion of the world's merchant ships can be said to be registered under flags of convenience; by some definitions in 2000 this covered half the world's tonnage." (d) in the examples of reasons delete “avoidance of environmental regulations” as they are applied to all ships under common provisions; but perhaps add to the examples “the requirements of ship-financing banks” (correctly mentioned by another contributor or two in this discussion) and/or “to reduce political restrictions” (the major reason why, for example, many South African, Cuban, Israeli, Taiwan vessels have at different times chosen not to use their national registers) (e) in the 3rd para delete the reference to Prestige. Whatever the causes the incident, it was not an example of "poor conditions, inadequately trained crews, and frequent collisions. " (f) It is not true that half the world’s fleet “frequently fail to pay their crews”, has poor safety records or abandons seamen etc. If such material belongs anywhere, it should be in the Opposition section and begin “The International Transport Workers' Federation claims [or asserts] that ….” (g) The last sentence is unsupported supposition and should be deleted (and in any case Liberia is generally considered a well-developed FOC and better than most)

HISTORY: (h) Begin “The first flag of convenience in recent times was that of Panama…” [There are much older examples of the use of flags of convenience – eg shipowners from both sides in the American Civil War used the British flag] (i) The emphasis on Prohibition is however mistaken. The prime reason for the growth of FOCs after WW1 was to enable US shipowners to control much larger fleets than could be economic under US flag; and they were closely followed by Greek owners. Once such arrangements were possible they were of course also utilised by those in illegal trades such as alcohol and arms smuggling. Other interwar FOCs included Costa Rica and Honduras. (j) It was not just the OECD countries, but also many of the FOC countries themselves that defeated the proposed restrictions in the 1970s.

LIST OF FLAGS OF CONVENIENCE: (k) Better to begin “As noted above, there is no generally accepted definition of Flag of Convenience on which to identify a list. For its own purposes the International Transport Workers' Federation maintains a list of what it considers FOCs. Davidships (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Cheers. Haus^Talk 09:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

External Links = References/Citations?

Is the external links section supposed to be references/citations? These are normally two different sections. Fourohfour 15:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Separated. --84.20.17.84 13:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

-Having served under a number of flags, I believe there is very little difference between the various regulatory environments.- Ha!!! Whoever made this comment either has no idea of what he is talking about or is not very fond of the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.147.31.166 (talk) 20:30, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

List

ITF says that it gives certificates to "good" FOCs. I have not marked them in the list, but you could search for it.

Foreign-owned tonnage per country would be nice as well.

Besides, in Special:Whatlinkshere/Flag of convenience there are countries not listed by ITF. --84.20.17.84 13:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring

I tried to give the article a little structure, and to separate the pro-FOC and anti-FOC arguments. There is a (now commented-out) paragraph at the end of opposition section that, as far as I can tell, is just a criticism of ITF, and doesn't seem to lend anything to the topic at hand. The article still needs a dozen {{fact}} templates and a big copy-edit. Cheers. Haus42 18:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Civil ensigns

I have put back the civil ensigns of those countries that have them. After all, this is an article about flags. The accessibilty text explains what they are to those who do not recognize them. I think I'm following the spirit of WP:FLAGS. --84.20.17.84 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As this article is about maritime flags, surely it is the merchant shipping flags/ensigns which should be shown. At least Malta, Belize and Netherlands Antilles would need changing. Davidships (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to find some information about if the registering company has an obligation to protect the ship as it would protect citizens on it's own soil. For example, if a ship is registered in the U.S. and is attacked in international waters by a ship registered from Germany, does the U.S. government have an obligation to step in and protect the U.S. ship?

190.10.27.218 13:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)TPMeyer

Removing NPOV tags

There are currently three NPOV tags on the page, but they are not supported on this talk page. Two of them are just silly: WP:NPOV demands that we treat seriously both sides of a contested issue, not that both sides be neutral in their point of view. Of course the "opposition" section is going to list criticisms of flags of convenience, the "support" section, answers to those criticisms. The bare presence of such sections is not a violation of NPOV. The main flag for the article as a whole seems similarly unsupported. The {{NPOV}} template is not for registering a disagreement or objection to what reliable sources say. RJC ^Talk 02:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Having one section for "opposition" and another section for "support" does not a neutral point-of-view make. There is an objective reality out there. The article in general seems rather poorly-structured to me, and gives the impression of being biased in favor of the ship owners. It also is lacking in some needed historical and factual context. (A chart showing the number of registrations in various countries relative to all international shipping would be a good start -- such statistics ought to have been published by an international treaty organization like the IMO.) I'd also like to see more discussion of national governments' official positions on the matter, and the impact that national laws restricting the market access of foreign-flag vessels has. 121a0012 (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree to that. When reading the articel I immediately get a clear view of what it's trying to make me thing: "It's a good thing" — Which is biased. The "Summary" section is very bad: "Underperforming registries may be mired in politics and bureaucracy, whether open or not." is logically questionable: The ratio of representation between open/nonopen registries in the "underperforming" category is dismissed as "there are some of both". Also, "mired in politics and bureaucracy" is, like alot of phrasing in this articel, unnecessarily charged language. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The intro definition and other issues

I've restored the definition used in the introduction prior to the changes made by Liscr (talk · contribs). It is better sourced and is more in line with the common definition of the term. Liscr suspiciously looks like a single-issue account with a conflict of interest (LISCR == Liberian International Ship & Corporate Registry). --Daggerstab (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Photo - Help!

Sorry, but in editing the caption for for the photo, the image has disappeared. I cannot see from the 'Edit Help' how to put it back. It is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ship_transom.JPG As the ship has since been sold it no longer appears on the referenced link to the Eitzen website. Davidships (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Typoboy Davidships (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Germany a flag of convenience?

I noticed that the table lists Germany, although it says only 2% of the ships registered there are foreign. Why is Germany even mentioned there if it has such a small proportion of foreign ships? It's nonsense. (Huey45 (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

It's not Germany, per se, it's the German International Ship Registry, which is an organization based in Germany. Similarly, the U.S. isn't a flag of convenience, but the Liberian registry, based in New York, is. Haus^Talk 11:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Haus, but they are not at all the similar. The German International Shipping Register is not "an organization based in Germany", it is part of the German Government. The ISR is administered by the Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie, as an optional part of the normal German shipregister. See http://www.bsh.de/en/Maritime_shipping/Commercial_shipping/International_Shipping_Register_(ISR)/index.jsp . As I understand it a ship cannot be entered on the ISR if it is not already entered on the normal shipping register (though I stand to be corrected).

On the other hand, the Liberian Register (of course the ultimate responsibility of the Government of Liberia) is indeed administered from an office in New York by Liberian International Ship & Corporate Registry under contract to that Government. Davidships (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, I think the point I was trying to make stands. Germany, as such, isn't listed as a FOC, the German ISR is. Why is the German ISR listed, because the ITF lists it as a FOC. Haus^Talk 20:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Full of Errors, Needs to Be Rewritten

Sorry, new to anything other than reading articles. I hate to jump in and just start ripping this article apart from top to bottom. Here are some major errors I notice right off. Title - The title of this article is not accurate and highly biased. It should be "Open Registries". The articles itself even metions this, "so-called flags of convenience, formally referred to as "open registries". Searching for "Open Registries" redirects here. This neeeds to be changed.

List of Open Registries - This does not include all open registries (or even FOC's as listed by the ITF). The list should not be drawn from the ITF list anyway as their list is only created with reference to labor standards, while the definition of an open registry has little to do with labor standards, and is mostly defined by the regulations governing vessel registration.

Number of Registered vessels per country - all wrong, by a lot in most cases. These numbers change on an almost daily basis, so ?

The 3 largest open registries - as of 2010, the largest are Panama, Liberia, and Marshall Islands, in that order.

If I reread this a couple more times, I'm sure I'd find many more problems, but I hate to start ripping this thing apart. Maybe it makes sense to have seperate article for "Flags of Convenience" (for ITF info) and "Open Registries" (for the actual technical info as it relates to the business of shipping).

Thanks, --attilag 13:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Lots of people know it as a "flag of convenience". Changing the names of articles just for the sake of political correctness is annoying and confusing and makes it difficult for people to find what they're looking for. The name is not an error and doesn't need to be rewritten. (Huey45 (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC))

Deepwater Horizon

As noted in it's main article and the spill page, was registered in the Marshall Islands. I had not realised that even oil rigs can get registered these ways, must be all that international transport they do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.204.68.130 (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Photo

I uploaded a photo of the MOL Pride, which is a operated by a Japanese Company, but uses the Liberian flag. According to this article there are 1,904 ships flying the Liberian flag, 111 of them Japanese. This photo is much more representative of a Flag of convenience than the Deepwater Horizon fire picture, which does not even display the flag. Iustitia (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Edits to lead

This edit has fewer problems than the last several, but still has two serious problems. 1) The comma is cutting a clause in half and not separating a parenthetical construct. In short: its use here mystifies me. 2) The change to the first sentence puts it at odds with the cited AMHER definition. The MOS entry that the subject be stated as "early as possible in the first sentence" does not suggest that definitions should be altered to be incorrect. Haus^Talk 02:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flag of convenience/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi. I'll probably end up reviewing this in several chunks as I get the time over the next couple of days. I'll post my thoughts as I get to appropriate points in the review. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your time and effort on this! Haus^Talk 22:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Images: Provisional pass. Several images, illustrating points made in the article and licenses seem fine. I've just got a slight question mark in my mind about neutrality, as two of the images are of maritime disasters. It'll become clearer to me as I get through the article whether this fairly represents the topic or not. 4u1e (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Stability: Provisional pass. I see there's been a little to-ing and fro-ing over words in the last week or so. Provided that's all settled now, there doesn't seem to be a current problem. 4u1e (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy and verifiability: TBD but note that I think the online source for the phrase in the lead "for purposes of reducing operating costs or avoiding government regulation" may have changed since you quoted from it. It is not now worded that way on the webpage (although the sense is the same) and the American Heritage Dictionary is not mentioned. The webpage does not support the use made of it in the second para of the lead either. The source is also misdescribed: your source is dictionary.com, not the American Heritage Dictionary, even if that is where dictionary.com says the quote comes from.
The link for the ICFTU et al. paper "More Troubled Waters: Fishing, Pollution, and FOCs" is broken.

• Re: American Heritage Dictionary. I see two options: 1) remove the link and cite the physical book, or 2) link to a page (such as http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flag+of+convenience or http://www.yourdictionary.com/flag-of-convenience) that shows the American Heritage definition. The first option seems to provide more of a WP:RS, while the second offers convenient verification. I'm open to suggestions on this. Haus^Talk 22:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Re: "More Troubled Waters", found another copy and replaced it in the reference. Haus^Talk 22:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Re: 2nd paragraph problem. I think fixing this is a matter of looking at some older revisions. I expect it to be resolved in a few hours. Haus^Talk 22:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

O.K., I think I've addressed the "second paragraph" concerns in these edits. The fix relied on citing a second dictionary (that is physically on my desk) which has on-line links similar to the American Heritage dictionary above. When we come to a decision on dictionaries and linking, I'll do the same thing with the Merriam Webster dictionary citation. Haus^Talk 02:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC) I noticed after the fact, that this edition of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate is also on-line at google books and added the appropriate link. Haus^Talk 08:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, as far as I can tell there is no way to link directly to the information in references 67 & 68. I attempted to address this problem in this edit. Haus^Talk 08:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hi - thanks for the updates. This is why I'm providing feedback as I go along, so you get more time to fix any problems. The relevant guidance for what to give as your citation is here. Basically the ref must say where you found it. If you've checked the dictionary in question, then that's your ref. Ref 3 looks OK on that basis. If you've only checked an online dictionary that quotes another dictionary, it's the website that's your ref, not the book it says it's quoting. Thus (unless you've actually looked at the American Heritage Dictionary, in which case we need a page number), your ref 2 is incorrect, since the source appears to be yourdictionary.com. I don't think there's any particular problem here - you seem to have access to sources that support the statement the article is making - it's just a question of making sure that we actually refer to the ones you've used. Para 2 refs look OK now. 4u1e (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In the "Wages" section, you have used ref 65 to support the term "unlicensed personnel", where the source actually uses "ratings". The term "unlicensed personnel", while technically accurate in that ratings won't have relevant operating licenses, could be taken to imply something illegal. I suggest you change it to "ratings" as in the source, with a wikilink and an explanatory note if you think it necessary. See below on this whole section though. 4u1e (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• For the moment, I wikilinked "unlicensed personnel" to unlicensed mariner. The term "rating" is archaic (this sense is not defined in the m-w 11th collegiate on my desk) in U.S.-English but in wide and current use in British-English. I think I can probably rewrite my way around this issue. Haus^Talk 22:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think I've worked around this by defining the terms "unlicensed mariner" and "rating" in the text. Haus^Talk 05:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It also looks as if you may be using primary sources to support your conclusions - i.e. drawing inferences directly from the numbers - which would be WP:SYNTHESIS. I haven't finished thinking about this point yet, but your thoughts would be welcome. 4u1e (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• My thinking is that the wage information is close to synthesis, but isn't really because the "conclusion" is WP:V. The conclusion, more or less, "mariners employed on FOC ships earn less than those registered in traditional registries", is cited at least a couple of times in the text. The data from the primary sources is provided as examples. I specifically avoided saying something like "so American chief engineers make 16 times more than Filipino chief engineers do" because of the feeling that it would be WP:OR. Haus^Talk 22:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Broad coverage: Provisional fail on criterion 3b, staying focussed on topic.

Can you explain why it is necessary to have so much detail on the various maritime conventions? Most of them have their own articles and I would have thought this article could have referred to them in a much briefer fashion. I may be missing something though!

• I'm open to splitting much of this information off into other articles. I'm going to ponder it a little, and may start splitting this evening. Haus^Talk 22:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
• I split off two new articles and cut this section from 1012 words down to 588 words. My feeling is that as these treaties establish a "minimum level of maritime regulation, from the viewpoint of shipowners" some coverage is needed, but of course, I'm open to more feedback on this item. I think it was certainly a net positive to cut down on the level of detail in this section. Cheers. Haus^Talk 11:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks again for the prompt response - I think you could usefully be even more radical in your surgery, but I also think you have done enough to address the point. 4u1e (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I know it's a pain having someone else pick apart your article, but I have real problems with the "Wages" section. The first paragraph doesn't seem to be relevant to FOCs at all. The second para states that wages and FOCs are connected, but I can't see how the remaining content of the para is connected to this statement. Are the registries of the Phillipines and China considered as FOCs? They do not appear in any of the lists of FOC registries in the article, so their wages relative to US ones don't seem relevant. 4u1e (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Can I ask you to look at this again, considering the sentence "The Phillipines and China are mentioned as particularly important suppliers of maritime labour", and see if it makes more sense? I'll look into rewriting this for clarity tonight. Haus^Talk 22:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Stricken since I rewrote the section. Haus^Talk 08:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• • OK, I've rewritten the Wages section, cutting a lot, adding a lot, and adding a new reference. I think it has worked around 1) OR concerns, and 2) the "unlicensed personnel"/"rating" concern. Here's the diff for your convenience. Cheers. Haus^Talk 05:28, 16
    • The intent of the section is now far clearer, although perhaps a little lengthy for a fairly straightforward point (ducks as Haus's coffee cup is thrown at screen ;-)). I'm afraid I've still got concerns over OR and use of primary sources. I'm only getting 10 minutes here and there to look at the article, so please bear with me a little longer while I complete the review. 4u1e (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well-written: Pass Good writing and no major MoS breaches that I can see. 4u1e (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

More to follow. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawing from review I'm really sorry about this, but work has picked up significantly and I simply do not have time to complete this review to my satisfaction. I remain concerned about possible POV and OR issues in the article, as well as some slips in referencing (ref 12 says more or less the opposite to the article regarding online registration), but no longer have the time to get to the bottom of it and justify either a pass or a fail. I have requested a second opinion at WP:GAN. Again, sorry. 4u1e (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: 4u1e (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion Sandman888

Lead

• Remove all refs and do away with the quote, state it directly. All facts should be duplicated in main, lead is just a summary.

 Done (diff). Haus^Talk 13:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OR

• I concur with your dealings here from what I've read. To clarify, I do not believe the wage statement is OR.

Images

• All good, but please make the chart 2D - that is much easier to see the relative size.

 Done Chart is now 2d. Haus^Talk 15:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• All in all a good article. Ping me when done/responded :)

Thanks for the second opinion. I'm going to add two remaining items from 4u1e's review that I intend to finish before pinging you.

• Re-source claims for on-line registration, 24 hour registrations.

 Done (diff)

• Fix American Heritage ref issue.

 Done (diff)

Cheers. Haus^Talk 13:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think all issues have now been addressed. Cheers. Haus^Talk 09:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Pass

Per above changes I pass the article. Congrats. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 12:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)