Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lilias Armstrong/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2017 [1].

---

Lilias Armstrong

Nominator(s): Umimmak (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a phonetician at University College London: Lilias Armstrong. She worked in the 1920s and 1930s and was a colleague of Daniel Jones. Her research focused on intonation and tone, and her work on Somali and Kikuyu is still held in high esteem. I was actually first made aware of Armstrong when I was referred to her work on Somali. I created this article as a stub in December 2014, and then decided in April I wanted to expand this article. I got this article to Good Article Status in June, and a peer evaluation believed it is ready for Featured Article Status. This is my first FA nomination, but I believe it meets all the criteria. Thank you for your consideration. Umimmak (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good but there are some monster paras, which should be split. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Split. There were a few places I had forgotten to double line break, thanks.Umimmak (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review - welcome to FAC!

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. You may wish to do a general Manual of Style review before other editors comment
• File:British_phonetician_Lilias_E._Armstrong.jpg: the given source appears to include a list of illustrations with author/copyright holder for each - who does it credit for this one?
• The level of originality required for copyright protection in the UK is quite low, and I'm not sure all of the transcriptions fall below it. Do you have further details about their copyright status? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed the captions. The list of illustrations provides a general note "The remaining photographs were supplied by Michelle Stanbury [i.e., Daniel Jones' daughter —Umimmak] or taken by ourselves", but it doesn't indicate who actually took the photograph.

As for copyright, I didn't think one could copyright images of individual words or simple geometric shapes.

But the text of Mill on the Floss was written in 1860 and Armstrong's transcription was published in 1921, so by any metric that should be good. Armstrong died more than 70 years ago so copyright has lapsed in the UK for the works which she solely authored. [Edit: And Kikuyu was published posthumously but before 1988 and more than 50 years ago. 16:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)] That leaves the Tunes and the Burmese, which come from works still in copyright due to the second author, but the images themselves don't have enough creative aspect involved for copyright.Umimmak (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: if I use File:The_North_Wind_and_the_Sun_as_per_Armstrong_Pe_Maung_Tin.png, is that better since I'm the one who typeset it?Umimmak (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No. If transcriptions do meet the threshold of originality - and I'm unsure whether they do, haven't found any cases - the originality would be in the transcription itself, not the typesetting thereof. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'm just confused because it would be completely fine if I quoted it as text with attribution in the body of the article, as I do in the caption for Firth or Watkin's transcriptions. I'm just quoting three words, but because of typesetting limitations on Wikipedia, the words have to be in an image file because I can't accurately type it using Wikipedia.

Are the portrait of Armstrong, and the Mill on the Floss, Somali, and Kikuyu transcriptions okay given the explanation above? Thanks Umimmak (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The difference is, unless you're throwing in an attribution template, it's assumed that short textual quotes are fair use, whereas for image files we need to provide an explicit licensing tag. The confusing part is, are these fair use too, or are they PD - and on that point I'm honestly not sure, IANAL and all that, but I do know UK law has a fairly low threshold for what's copyrightable. The non-transcription images are all fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

And are the transcriptions from works that Armstrong alone authored okay since she died more than 70 years ago and posthumous works were published more than 50 years ago so the UK standards no longer apply? Umimmak (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

What about US standards? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

What about them? You said the issue was U.K. Copyright since they might have a lower threshold for what constitutes creative work? U.S. Copyright only applies to literary or creative works, not facts or data. The part that actually has a creative aspect, i.e., George Eliot's words, is in the public domain (but it's moot since Armstrong's transcription of Eliot was published before 1923). Umimmak (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so we're asserting that all of the article's transcriptions don't meet threshold of originality for US. Then you'll just want to add the appropriate copyright tags for the UK status, since they are all on Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm still a bit confused. I went and added more tags for images which come from works now in the British public domain in addition to Template:PD-text. But I'm still not sure what the next steps are. Do I just need to sacrifice those three images (The Burmese and the Two Tunes) whose coauthor didn't die long enough ago? Or is there any way I can somehow make the image myself or claim fair use? I'm just confused how three words can be copyrighted -- if it were the image of the entire text, I could understand how that might meet the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, but I specifically limited it to the title because I figured you can't copyright a title. Umimmak (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

At this point, I'd say the tunes are fine. I am not sure either way about the Burmese, but in the absence of clear case law on the matter (or opinions from other reviewers), I think the best course of action is to assume that you are correct that it doesn't meet the threshold of originality. Sorry for the confusion - this is a very odd case! Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

So to clarify the images are fine now, and I need to do anything else? Thank you. PS I've made a post at WP:IMAGEHELP about this nomination to see if anyone there had comments on this matter. Umimmak (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from RL0919

I don't know that I will be able to review this in detail, so for now please consider these "drive by" comments:

• There are a lot of quotations in the citations. It is unusual to add quotes to citations unless there is a dispute about what the source said or some other compelling motive for including them. If there is not such a justification, you should probably trim these out of the citations.
• I fixed a couple of MOS:LQ issues that I spotted; you might want to check for others.
• I see a lot of people mentioned as co-workers, commenters, etc., without any explanation of who they are. Even when there are links, some brief context is usually preferred. For example, "British phonetician Jack Windsor Lewis wrote ..." rather than just "Jack Windsor Lewis wrote ..."

That's it for now. If I get a chance to review the article more thoroughly, I may come back with more. --RL0919 (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

As for the quotations in the citations, my reasoning was it would be good to preemptively include quotations for increased verifiability, particularly when the original source was not in standard English orthography or was from a source other editors might not have easy access to. I figured it would be easier to add the quotations while I still had access to the sources than risk someone requesting a quotation when I no longer had access. If this is something I need to do, I'll go and remove them, but I'll hold off on this for now because it would be a lot of effort and I can imagining other editors preferring them to be there, for the reasons mentioned above and also to ensure I'm not too closely paraphrasing. Other points noted and I'll edit accordingly, thanks. Edit: I did remove some of the quotations -- but only those which are in standard English orthography, online, non-paywalled, and not via Google Books as one can't trust a Google Books URL to be available for all editors. Umimmak (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Update: Additional paywalled quotations removed if they were in major online resources like JSTOR and in standard English orthography. Umimmak (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed this at peer review and found it to be well-written, well-cited, and an example of Wikipedia's best work. All my concerns were addressed already, so I'm happy to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Umimmak (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

I appreciate that a great deal of trouble has been taken over the referencing of this article. There's a lot to check here, and as it's the nominator's first FAC, spotchecks for accuracy and close paraphrasing will need to be done. For the moment, however, I'm making a few general points based on my examination of the first 70 or so of the references.

• In a large number of occasions the citation is followed by an extract of the source's text. This, I note, has been raised by an earlier reviewer. I'd like to reiterate the view that such overdetailing is entirely unnecessary; ref 5 should read, simply, "Armstrong 1923, p. vii", ref 6 "Collins & Mees 2006, p. 478", and so on. Using the standard short citation format will remove much clutter from the referencing section.
• Another feature I noticed was a tendency to include what are apparently supplementary citations, preceded by formulations such as "See also...", "see e.g...." etc. If these "supplementaries" are inessential, I'd advise dropping them and simplifying the citations list. if they are thought essential, then they should be cited as references in the standard format.
• When a source is in a language other than English, this should be stated by adding, e.g. "(in French)"
• Ref 10: You preface this with "Sources disagree as to the name of the school or schools she taught at, how long she taught, and what her positions were". So they might, but the issue is relatively trivial, quite unworthy of the massive multi-referencing introduced around this topic. I'd ignore the slight differences of name & chronology in the sources ("East Cheam" is obviously a misprint for "East Ham") and use a couple of references that support the statements in the text – which can if necessary be made a little flexible to allow for any doubt.
• I noticed that ref 4 appears to be based on original research, using the findmypast website. This site is not considered as reliable by FA criteria standards; it may be possible to find a reliable secondary source that will confirm this information.

That's what I've found so far. I'd like some response before going on with the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Quotations removed or commented out in cases where there might be a chance of someone using Template:Request quotation.

I can reword the "see alsos".

I can add these

I can rewrite that bit.

Reference 4 and its corresponding sentence in the body can be stricken.

Changes have been made.

Umimmak (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Updated 22:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm encouraged, will look in later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Continuing my review (down to about ref 150):

• A general point: is there a reason why some sources for which there are multiple citatioins (e.g. Jones, Asher, Collins & Mees, etc) are shown in the "References" list, while others (e.g. the Armstrongs 1921, 1923, 1927, 1932, 1934, Armstrong & Ward, Pike, Leach and others) only appear in the citations list? Unless there's a good reason for doing it this way, it would be preferable to place all multiple-cited sources in the references section.
• Ref 97: This looks like a remaining case of overkill – too many citations for a minor point
• Ref 128: What is the language here?
• Ref 130: You give the language as French, but the title is in German
• Ref 132 incorporates a Harvard error
• Ref 142: What is the language here?

I'll deal with the remaining refs during my next pass. Brianboulton (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton:

A general point -- My thought process was to have "References" consist of the important works about Armstrong. Pike isn't about Armstrong, so I didn't want to group it with the other sources which are actually about her. As for the works originally by Armstrong, in a version long ago I used shortened footnotes that were anchored to the full citation information in the "Works" section, but another editor found that confusing that some anchors went up to works and others went down to references. It seems redundant to repeat the same information in both her works section and the references section, (as per MOS, the works section should be before the references).

Could you take a look at User:Umimmak/sandbox/combined#References? I've followed other featured articles, e.g., Anna Laetitia Barbauld, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Joseph Priestley which group the references in similar ways. I'm still not super happy about the redundancy of works she authored being listed twice, but it seems like this is standard practice. Hopefully you understand my reasoning -- I just want a way to tell the reader "these are the main references about Armstrong", and not include a book that's, say, mostly about the intonation of American English when only a couple pages of that whole work are relevant. [rewritten slightly 00:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)]

OK, I accept what you've done with regard to the works authored by Armstrong. But separating works about Armstrong from works about her field of expertise or related topics is confusing; I'd prefer to seee all of these anchored in the References list, so that anyone looking at that list gets a proper idea of the range of principal sources used. The works co-authored by Armstrong, e.g. Armstrong & Ward, Armstrong & Pe Maung Tin, etc, could be listed either among the works or in the references. Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Ref 97 -- I removed one of them, but I'm making a claim it was cited in speech training bibliographies (e.g., Thonssen et al), theatre training bibliographies (e.g., Voorhees et al.) and for decades (e.g., Cohen 1964). I don't think it's excessive, but would it be better to write say ...appeared in bibliographies for speech and theatre up through the 1960s.?

No, how you have it now is better - suggest leave it.

Ref 128 it's in English

Fine, OK

Ref 130 fixed, I got primed seeing the "französischen" I guess

Ref 132 I'm not sure I see the issue? it works fine on my end.

Works for me too, now.

Ref 142 Article is in English, but like all articles in MPh, it's in phonetic transcription instead of standard orthography.

Thanks! Umimmak (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking now to see if there are any further issues in the final third of the citations. Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

(Later) – just a few queries:

• 156: the source language appears to be Somali
• 215: is the source language German?
• 219: link not working. This may be temporary, but please check.

That only leaves me to carry out a few spotchecks, which I will do over the next couple of days or so. Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton:

156 No, Andrzejewski's "Grammatical Introduction" is in English.

215 No, the article is in English; the journal just has a German title.

219 Should I remove the link then? It seems like Archive.org had it up but has since realized the work is still copyrighted and removed the work.

Umimmak (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Update: I'd prefer to seee all of these anchored in the References list, I acquiesce; changes have been made. Umimmak (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: As a head's up, I've decided to swap in a new source for reference [55] based on your earlier comment about avoiding "see also"s. Umimmak (talk) 05:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now....will make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• errr...what's a king's scholar? (should it be capitalized?) oh well, it'll remain a mystery...
• she had success in this line of work - odd phrasing for a teacher, maybe better as "highly regarded"? its more of a style thing...so not a dealbreaker really.
• At first mention of Pe Maung Tin, a descriptor would be good "Burmese linguist" or something

Otherwise looking good - am thinking about structure of lead though have nothing to offer as yet. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

king's scholar wasn't capitalized in the source. I'm not really sure what it means to be honest... the wikipedia article King's Scholar only seems to discuss it in terms of public schools, not universities. As far as I can tell it means she was the recipient of a "king's scholarship", but I'm not entirely sure what that means.

maybe better as "highly regarded" I guess, but one can be highly regarded but, due to things like budgetary constraints or other issues, might be prevented from being successful. I'll think about how to reword that if it's awkward.

a descriptor would be good noted.

~Umimmak (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok I am happy with prose and completeness...though concede it's not my topic area at all....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

This is an interesting account about an expert in a field that will be unfamiliar to many readers. I'm reading it as a non-expert, and I'm unable to closely follow or critique the more technical content. I made a small number of low-level prose changes as I went. Please revert any that seem misguided. Here are further suggestions about prose and style:

Lead

• ¶1 "She worked at University College London and had attained the rank of reader." – Tighten a bit and stick with straight past tense? Suggestion: "She worked at University College London, where she attained the rank of reader."
• ¶1 "...was a popular analysis for some time." – The phrase "for some time" is too vague to be meaningful. I'd either replace it with something more specific or delete it if there's no way to make it specific.
• ¶1 Ida Ward should be linked only once in the lead, and it would be better to choose either Ida C. Ward and Ida Ward but not both. Suggestion: Change the first instance to Ida C. Ward, and use last name only, Ward, in the second instance.

Employment history

• ¶1 "Armstrong's first experience teaching phonetics was in summer 1917, in Daniel Jones's summer course..." – Tighten? No need to repeat "summer". Suggestion: "Armstrong's first taught phonetics in 1917 in Daniel Jones's summer course...".
• ¶1 "for missionaries to learn phonetics" – Delete "to learn phonetics" since that's already clear from context?

Courses and lectures

• ¶1 "In addition to teaching courses on French and English phonetics,[26] Armstrong taught courses on the phonetics of Swedish[27] and of Russian. She also taught a class on speech pathology alongside Daniel Jones titled "Lecture-demonstrations on Methods of Correcting Defects of Speech".– Tighten to avoid repetition? Suggestion: "Armstrong taught courses on French, English, Swedish, and Russian phonetics, and, alongside Daniel Jones, a class on speech pathology titled "Lecture-demonstrations on Methods of Correcting Defects of Speech".
• ¶2 "...for a course geared for those studying and teaching French" – I'd replace the slangy "geared" with "meant".
• ¶2 and ¶3 The word "also" appears a combined seven times in these paragraphs. It's an OK word when used sparingly. I think you could safely remove some of these without changing the meaning of the sentences in which they appear.

Students

• ¶1 "...while he was there, Lilias Armstrong and Ida C. Ward..." – I would just use "Armstrong" here rather than the full name, and I would link Ida C. Ward here on first use in the main text rather than in the "English intonation" subsection further down.

Le Maître Phonétique

• ¶1 "...which consisted of texts transcribed in IPA from various languages," – I would spell out, link, and abbreviate IPA here on first use in the main text; i.e., the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA).

London Phonetic Readers Series

• ¶1 "Armstrong and Pe Maung Tin developed the first transcription of in accordance to principles of the International Phonetic Association." – Word missing? Transcription of what?
• ¶3 "The number of specialized phonetic symbols and diacritics was a complaint of one contemporary review of this book." – A number is not a complaint. Maybe "...led to a complaint by a contemporary reviewer.
• ¶3 "...necessary to convey the interaction of tone and prosody..." – Link prosody to prosody (linguistics)?

English intonation

• ¶1 "It was accompanied by three double-sided gramophones which consisted of Armstrong and Ward reading English passages." – I don't understand what "gramophone" refers to in this context. I understand "gramophone" to mean "phonograph", a recording and playing machine, but that doesn't fit here. The illustrations make somewhat more clear that "gramophone" is being used here to refer to a notation. Is there a more clear way to explain this or a better word than "gramophone"?
• ¶3 "...to symbolize adequately (i.e. structural)..." – That should be "structurally" to match "adequately". Is the parenthetical remark in the original quotation? Does it really say "structural"?
• ¶3 "...there is "a greater wealth of detail than are here recorded"..." The word "wealth" is singular, and the verb should be singular, "is", rather than plural, "are". Is the mistake in the original? Or is this an OK variant in the English language?

Kikuyu

• ¶4 "...each tone class was defined in terms of its tonal allomorphy depending on surrounding context." – Link allomorphy here on first use in the article rather than on second use in ¶4?

General

• All images have alt text.
• No problems with disambiguation links.
• No dead URLs detected.
• I removed a few duplicate links from the main text. There may be a few more but not many.

• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Response: @Finetooth: Just for organization I gave this this own section heading. Quickly looking through your suggestions they make sense. Some particulars:

• My thought process for "while he was there, Lilias Armstrong and Ida C. Ward" was that it would be unbalanced to say "while he was there, Armstrong and Ida C. Ward", i.e., with one last and one full name. But if you don't think this is an issue I can fix that.

I don't think it's an issue, but if you want to re-insert "Lilias" for balance, that's fine too. I linked Ward here on first use in the main text and unlinked her later in the article. Finetooth (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• A word was missing thanks for catching that. Will change to "Armstrong and Pe Maung Tin developed the first transcription system for Burmese in accordance to principles of the International Phonetic Association."

• "A number is not a complaint", I see your point. Maybe "One contemporary review of this book referred to the amount of specialized phonetic symbols and diacritics as a 'profusion of diacritical marks that is rather confusing'." ? Just saying it "led to a complaint" feels vague to me, like you're still waiting to find out what the complaint actually was.

• a word was missing, they were accompanied by gramophone records, thank you.

Ah, yes, of course. My mind wandered into complications that weren't there. Finetooth (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Pike does in fact say "structurally", thank you.

• Armstrong and Ward quotation in full is: "The writers are aware that there are other varieties and greater wealth of detail than are here recorded". Will change "are" to "[is]", if that works. Thank you for catching that; I was confused by the notional agreement in other Britishisms like "The committee are", I suppose.

Good solution. Finetooth (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• General note on WP:DUPLINK -- I acquiesce on these changes, I suppose if this is policy. My thought process was that one of the Ida C. Wards you unlinked was three sections/seven paragraphs from the last mention of Ward, and nine paragraphs from its initial wikilink. Catford's name appears ten paragraphs after the only previous time he's mentioned and wikilinked. Is it expected a reader will remember that a name from much earlier in the article was wikilinked? Apparently, according to the MOS...

• Also, I suppose that following your guidelines I should say who Firth is under "courses and lectures" and link him there, and then just hope by the time they get to students they remember he was notable enough to have been linked in the previous subsection?

Your logic makes sense. The guidelines are not laws or absolutes, and if you think an extra link in a few instances would be helpful, please re-add them. Whatever you decide about this will not affect my support for this excellent article. Finetooth (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Umimmak (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Other wording suggestions and changes make sense and will be incorporated into the article. Thank you. Umimmak (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we still need a source spot check as this would be the nominator's first FA if promoted. Brian, are you still able to do this, having bravely volunteered above? If not, we can add this to the list at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Spotchecks

I found it very difficult to carry out a thorough spotcheck, since the vast majority of sources are books or articles I don't have. Of the online sources, some are in foreign languages, others are behind paywalls and others involve lengthy downloads I don't have time for. From what remains, I picked six sources at random, and in each case they supported the cited text, with no issues of close paraphrasing. So I'm prepared to say that spotchecking is satisfactory. Brianboulton (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate you giving an effort! (P.S., quotations from some of the less available sources remain in an earlier version of the article [2] in case they'd be useful for you, or some other editor Sarastro1 finds, to spot check some of the harder to obtain sources. I'm not sure if "satisfactory" means its meets standards for FA or not.) (P.P.S., should I somehow warn the reader that certain files are large? Is there a standard way to let them know?) Umimmak (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Subject bar and See also

Greetings, Today I added a subject bar thinking this will help the average Wikipedia reader find additional topic information. For the SA, I'm totally out of my element here, so I'm wondering if there are specific articles that could be added onto See also? Overall, a well written article. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I might change the subject bar to the portal bar, just because only portals are linked and the portal bar is less clunky than the subject bar. I also don't think SA sections are mandatory, any potentially useful articles I could think of are already linked and incorporated in the body. Umimmak (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I'm happy with the spot checks for this article, and all other checks have been completed. Therefore I will be promoting shortly. I note that several reviewers have suggested that the technical sections here are a little difficult to follow, but that is probably unavoidable in such an article and should not be a bar to promotion. In an ideal world, we would have had a technical review, but I suspect that no such thing is possible at FAC and that the biggest expert on the subject is likely to be the nominator. In any case, there is no need to hold this up any longer as there is a clear consensus to promote. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Sarastro1 and to all the other reviewers for their helpful feedback! And yes it's unfortunate there was not a technical review. I left a message in early October in the WikiProject Lingistics page, but unfortunately it and the Phonetics Task Force aren't as active as other wikprojects, it seems. Umimmak (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.