Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indian Head eagle/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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [1].

---

Indian Head eagle

Indian Head eagle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Indian Head eagle/archive1

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. The sixth in a projected ten article series about the Great Recoinage of U.S. coins between 1907 and 1921, we return to the initial battles which we saw in Saint-Gaudens double eagle between sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens, Mint Chief Engraver Charles E. Barber and President Theodore Roosevelt, who went so far as to threaten Barber with decapitation (a certain appropriateness there, what with Barber's cutting name). Since it covers the same time period as the double eagle article, I went to some effort to not use the same quotes or images (excepting one) which are used in the double eagle article. This has passed GA and received a PR. Enjoy it. Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Missing bibliographic info for Vermeule
• FN 16: which Burdette?
• FN 31: formatting should match Bibliography entries. Also, GBooks links don't require retrieval dates
• FN 35: check author. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

While it is not required, I prefer to do it, as who knows what Google will do tomorrow. Thank you for the check, I will fix the items you mentioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Support – I peer reviewed this article and such very small quibbles as I had have been addressed. I leave comment about the images to those who police such matters, but in all other regards, this article seems to me to meet every FA criterion. Interesting even for those of us to whom numismatics is a closed book. The article is a credit to Wehwalt and will be a credit to Wikpedia. – Tim riley (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Image Review - Just about everything checks out from a copyright standpoint, my only concern is that the name of the source publication for File:High relief eagle.png isn't actually listed, it just says there is one. I'm also really not sure why we need the two mint medals of the directors, the image quality isn't too great and the images themselves seem superfluous. Finally, File:Pt eagle.png looks artificially enlarged, so I'm going back to the source and doing it over. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Pt eagle.png handled. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The source was in there but it was lower case and not italicized, my apologies. I was only going to have the one mint medal (Preston) but both of my photographic images of Roberts are left-facing and I needed an image that would work on the left. If the quality is poor, I can rescan them, though I won't be home for a couple of weeks. Thanks for working on the image.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The two mind medals look blurry, most noticeably on the edge lettering, with Roberts being especially bad. Either the scanner moved while it was being scanned or the image itself was artificially enlarged too much. Everything left of Roberts' ear is pixelated heavily, especially the back of his coat across from the GE of George. I don't know what the answer is, I don't want to hold this for weeks at a time. Being that they look fine in the article itself, I suppose it's okay to let it go until you can do a rescan, and not let it choke up the review. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, probably has to do with the high relief of Mint medals. I may go back to using a camera on them, as I have a small collection of about ten Mint directors and one Secretary of the Treasury.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about the new images Wehwalt. The wire rim checks out iff it really has no copyright notice. I would have no way of knowing since its not online, but if there's no notice, there's no notice. If there is a copyright notice buried somewhere, then we get into the discussion I had about the other coin at FAC now; which is that the image itself does not qualify for copyright because it doesn't meet the threshold for originality that US law requires. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

As I thought. All these materials are in a public archive, they are open 1030 to 5, or if you called the librarian, it could be verified that way. Not saying you're going to do it, but it is verifiable. I probably wound up with about three hundred coin images that if I had the patience to upload all of them would have similar license tags. Kagin's, Steve Ivy, and MTB were the offenders who did not copyright their work! Very pleased, I put in a hard two days work there. I should be able to replace many of the images on wiki of coins that have defective copyrights.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

SupportLeaning to support: I have a few minor issues with this otherwise characteristically informative coin article:-

Lead

• "...but in 1907, Roosevelt decided to use a model that the sculptor had prepared for the cent instead for the obverse of the eagle". The "instead" is awkwardly placed, though other placements are equally problematic. I've made lots of attempts to reframe the sentence, but can do no better than: "...but in 1907, Roosevelt decided to use a model for the obverse of the eagle that the sculptor had intended for the cent" - which may not be much better.
• Can ending a paragraph and beginning the next with "Saint-Gaudens" be avoided?

Inception

• Pipe-link "Liberty Head" to Liberty Head Gold Dollar? On the same theme, should "the head of Liberty" be piped to Liberty (goddess)

No, on the first, they had different designers, yes on the second.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• "...had remained the same for 25 years..." → "...had remained the same for more than 25 years..."

Longer, I think. This is always a pain to explain, which is why I put the quote from the law in the dime article. Once you are in the 25th year, you can replace the design. You don't even have to strike coins in the 25th year, the Mint had no intention in 1916 of striking any Barber pieces, though they eventually had to with a silver shortage and delayed designs.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Preparations

• I'm not sure what the "collar" is in coin terms, and I am baffled by the wording "the Mint's machine shop worked to invent the collar." Invent?

That is per source, but I will work for a better phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps you couls also exclaim what is meant by "rim"

Design

• I'm a bit concerned by the double hyphenation in "olive-branch-wrapped". But can anything be "wrapped" in a branch?

Perhaps "with"?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Release and production

• Small point: you mention that the eagle series had begun in 1795. I think this quite significant piece of background information should be mentioned in the lead.

Collecting

• Conventionally, "forty" should be "40"

I would have, but with a year following, I think you will agree that "forty 1933 eagles" is better than "40 1933 eagles".--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• What does "satin proof" mean?
• The long image caption, which elaborates on information given earlier in the text, displaces the References section. Would it be better to have the expanded information in the text, and a short summary caption?

I see no difficulties resolving these and look forward to fully supporting. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

All those things are done, with slight variations, except as noted above. If I missed anything, please let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with these responses (I think I understand what a "collar" is, now). Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose Support Tony (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC) —1a, MoS, referencing.

• "Both the obverse and the reverse were designed by sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens, though he did not live to see the coin released"—opening not logical.
• "President Theodore Roosevelt proposed the use of new, beautiful designs on US coins"—where is this referenced? I might have missed it below, but it's a key claim, and "beautiful" can't be found elsewhere. It's an interpersonal epithet, which is slightly uncomfortable, whereas "new" is a normal epithet.
• "originally" twice in five seconds, and then again, and again.
• "intended ... intended" ... can't the second one be binned?
• "US coins which were then"—should there be a comma, and possible a semicolon after 1907?
• "the President decided on a design featuring a standing bald eagle which had been originally intended for"—this is a good example of why the Chicago MoS says to favour "that" rather than "which" (so there's no doubt about comma/no comma). "that was originally" is possible, and neater. Or "bald eagle, originally intended (or "first intended").
• We have "ten-dollar coin" and "twenty-dollar piece", but "ten dollar gold piece" in the very first line.
• "and months were occupied with design modifications"—this is a bit uncomfortable. Aren't the workers occupied with the task? It's possibly a matter of idiom, not logic.
• Probably "differed".
• "When the new coins reached the public"—just once, we lose the chronology.
• "the modification and small changes to the design"—unclear.
• "stopped production"—for phonological reasons alone, consider inserting "the".
• "at the direction by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933."—direction of?
• "and the 1933 issue is a great rarity, as few were distributed". Is "great" encyclopedic? I'm not exactly sure. "Few" issues? There's a clash.
• Infobox: consider a nbsp before "eagle". Why do Gold and Copper have initial caps? MoS: closing range two digits. Space poor, better "stars (1907–11); ...". Better 13 than spelled out in a space-poor infobox. " An eagle standing on a bunch of arrows; the arrows are wrapped by an olive branch." possibly neater as "An eagle standing on a bunch of arrows that are wrapped by an olive branch." I tried without "that are", but maybe it's necessary to include those two words.

I haven't looked beyond the lead. I'm surprised to find so much to discuss in so short a text that was written by an expert in the topic, and a prolific FA writer for whom I have a deal of respect. Tony (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Extended discussion moved to talk. Summary: Wehwalt has made some changes in response to Tony1's points; Tony1 wants him to either make all requested changes or provide reasoning for not doing so. Tony1 also requests that SandyGeorgia recuse as delegate on this FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've responded there, informing Tony that his comment was so offensive he is conflicted out from reviewing the article, and has no right or interest to demand a delegate recuse.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition, Raul has now expressed on his talk page his confidence in Sandy's ability in this matter. That ends it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Self-serving twaddle. You need to address the review points in good faith. I've changed to "Strong oppose", and will scrutinise the article now beyond the lead. There is no way that SandyGeorgia could do anything but recuse from this nom: she has prejudiced herself on my talk page and elsewhere. Tony (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply. I believe that all of the points Tony raised above have now been addressed with the exception of one with which I don't agree:

• "New pieces were given to the President on August 31, which differ from the coins struck later for circulation.". I think that "differ" rather than the suggested "differed" is correct, as the coins still exist and still differ. Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Support on criterion 1a but with some minor concerns:

• Here, "proposed the use of new, beautiful designs on US coins", would "introduction" be better than "use", which would make "new" redundant and stop the clash I hear, but cannot explain, of "new" and "beautiful"?
• Here, "prompting the Mint to hire Saint-Gaudens to create those pieces, why not write "them"?
• Here, "proved in too high relief for the Mint to readily strike", why not say "was in too high", or am I missing some nuance?
• I would prefer "finished" to "finalized".
• Here, "Saint-Gaudens foresaw resistance from Barber in the question of the new coinage". Should this not be "on the question"?
• Here, "Roosevelt was impressed by some models Saint-Gaudens had prepared for the cent", would "designs" be better?
• Something seems to be missing here: "The Saint-Gaudens studio moved quickly on revised images." Is it just the definite article?
• I think "utilize" is an ugly word and prefer the more humble and friendlier "use".
• How about a simple "and said" (or wrote) rather than "stating that". I think the verb to state is overused and should be confined to courts of law.

Thank you for another engaging contribution in this series. I might want to add a few more nitpicks following a second reading, but I do not see any reason to not support this. Well done. Graham Colm (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. I will try to get to your comments as soon as I can. Frankly it isn't easy right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Those things are now done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• When you've addressed the matters I raised above, there are a few more things. I must say, the rest of the article is on a much better level than the lead. Why?
  • Trivial, but a dot is missing from the metal model caption.
  • MoS: no need to square-bracket a case change: instructing him to "[h]ave this matter .... I see another instance of this. It's much smoother to the reader to remove the clutter-brackets.
  • "About five hundred pieces"—can't this be in numerals?
  • newly-designed. MoS breach.
  • "Roosevelt desired to omit"—I'm trying to think of a more comfortable wording. "wanted to"?
  • Comma splice: "The House of Representatives passed a bill ordering the use of the motto on the new eagle and double eagle (which also lacked the phrase) in March 1908, the Senate followed suit in May, and Roosevelt, finding public opinion against him, signed the bill into law that month."
  • You might consider removing one comma to make these pretty long sentence easier to parse: "During World War I, with gold coins commanding a premium above face value, and many gold pieces returning from Europe to pay for war materials, there was little need for new gold coins, and coinage of eagles was discontinued after 1916." It's a more subjective thing, but this could be more arresting and drive home the trajectory of the sentence: "there was little need for new gold coins: coinage of eagles was discontinued after 1916." Generally, you might consider slightly carefully reducing the use of commas in just a few mid-sentence places ("and" is the trigger). Here's another (consider the bumpy effect and the fact that the psychological subject of the sentence casts over the second half as well): "Many of the gold coins seen today had been exported to Europe before 1933, and repatriated once restrictions on holding gold were ended."
  • "prior to 1920"—please consider "before 1920", which is much more natural to English. Tony (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As Sandy has asked me to at least consider Tony's comments, I made several changes, where the points seemed to me to be valid. Where they seemed to me to be merely stylistic (I prefer to have numbers spelled out when MOS allows me to do so, as it does in this case: "five hundred" is three syllables) matters of word choice, and I felt my choice was as valid or superior, I have ignored them.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sandy is headed towards a very bad place. "asked me to at least consider Tony's comments": no, you need to address the comments in exactly the way you do for other reviews. I see no explanations, no evidence, here. The Strong oppose stays until you stop this nonsense, abetted, apparently, by SandyGeorgia. Tony (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. I think that all the valid points raised by Tony have been addressed either by Wehwalt or by me. Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, you're being Wehwalt's servant, are you? But this corrupt system will still encourage Wehwalt to aggressively assert ownership over the article, in breach of the Pillars. Why does Saint-Gaudens double eagle open with "twenty-dollar gold coin", but the hyphens are missing from this article? I've already pointed out this issue. It seems to be the only matter outstanding. Tony (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You had, as I understand it, asked for it to be consistent, so I removed all hyphens. Fine, I'll put a hyphen in all three.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Tony, I not infrequently try to make helpful edits to FACs, but it's the first time I've been called a servant for doing it. Are you suggesting that the article should be allowed to fail because a few hyphens are missing? I've made quite a few edits to this article before today in fact, and Wehwalt has never exhibited any signs of ownership as a result. I can only go by what I see. Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Good, well let's fix the problem at the opening, so this article is consistent with the others of this topic that Wehwalt owns. Tony (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fixed now isn't it? Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Tony (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hardly owns; RHM22 has done major work in the area. Thank you both for your work and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "As his successor, San Francisco Mint Superintendent Frank A. Leach, did not take office until November 1, former Mint Director Robert Preston served as acting director in the interim.[14]" – should be "As his successor, San Francisco Mint Superintendent Frank A. Leach did not take office until November 1; former Mint Director Robert Preston served as acting director in the interim.[14]"; that would make sense yes you are right; I understand the meaning of the sentence after re-reading.
  • "With Landis on vacation,[17] Cortelyou passed the President's letter on to the acting Philadelphia Mint superintendent, Dr. Albert A. Norris, instructing him to "have this matter taken up at once and the President's instructions carried out; and everything possible must be done to expedite the work."[18]" – capitalicize "superintendent" for consistency I now understand
  • "Norris, in his subsequent letter to Acting Director Preston noted that the Mint had been having trouble with the collar, which would strike the edge of the coin and impress 46 stars, representing the number of states there would be after Oklahoma's already scheduled admission to the Union later in 1907." – "Norris noted in his subsequent letter to Acting Director Preston that the Mint had been having trouble with the collar, which would strike the edge of the coin and impress 46 stars, representing the number of states there would be after Oklahoma's already scheduled admission to the Union later in 1907."; this is correct thank you. You now see why the point position is of big importance.
  • "A total of 32,000 eagles were struck using the Barber-modified Saint-Gaudens dies, for the most part using ordinary coinage presses." – not sure, but shouldn't it be "Saint-Gauden's"?
  • "With the admission of New Mexico and Arizona as states in 1912, the number of stars on the edge was increased from 46 to 48. [40]" – no space after period
  • "LLC" or "L.L.C."; I would say "LLC"
  • "Victory and peace" or "Victory and Peace" (in the caption)?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 19:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
    • It is still inconsistent. In the caption it says "Victory and peace" and in text "victory and peace". Sorry, I know it is a nitpick, but I believe this article should be excellent and should not even contain the smallest things you could ever thing of (for example the "space-to-much" comment above).

Thanks for the comments. I am not totally convinced by the first one, do you feel that a semicolon is the way to go there? The others I'll get to tomorrow, I've been spending a hard day on research and would prefer to get some sleep, hope you don't mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I still think a comma is better, however, I do not consider this a big deal, and am happy to consult with other editors on this. "Superintendent" is properly lower case due to that comma (had there been no comma and all of that was grafted onto Norris's name as a title, then it would be capitalized. "Saint-Gaudens" is proper in referring to the design like that, for example Saint-Gaudens double eagle, the companion to this article. All others are done as per your suggestions. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Will support after nitpick resolved =).--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 11:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Taken care of.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support --♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 11:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your thoughtful review.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments. Nice piece! Way more interesting than I thought it would be. HA! Both the content (personality and art) as well as the way you write it up. Kudos. I only skimmed it, so can't support or oppose. Just some surfacey thoughts, FWIW:

• Concerned that there has been little reviewer engagement/discussion of the content itself. Huge engagement on the writing, but I am already comfortable with your ability there (even though I think the nits have mainly been "right").
• I wonder (not a strong suppositiong, something to check) if the part at the end about circulation and collecting could use more info. Seems like we hit the history really hard and well and your article will be a fun and good resource for that, but want to make sure we cover the more analytical aspects well also.

Once the coin is released, it usually ceases to make news, therefore there is not much to be said, excepting the design tweaks. If a coin runs a long time, like the Lincoln cent, there are things to discuss, if not, well, not. Eagles didn't really circulate that much anyway, they were used as reserves for gold certificates and in international trade transactions.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Suggest getting a few reviewers to read the thing and comment on it from different perspectives and perhaps engage a bit more in the content. Some possible slants (Project USA and kumioko, a main contrib to the TR article, sculptor (irl or someone who's done good Wiki articles there, another currency person (ideally not just your compadre) or maybe a stamp-collector, biographer, layperson).

Always glad to hear new angles. I own the major bios on TR and I've been disappointed they don't talk about coins. The story isn't over yet, there was more conflict over the smaller gold coins ($2.50 and $5), which will be covered when I get to those coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Is the Halperin book on coinage of Saint Gaudens (Ivy Press) at all additive?

Not terribly. It is mostly discussions of each coin by date and mintmark, rarity, market discussions, sometimes auction results for the rare dates.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

But that is the aspect of content that (I wonder if we) are light on. Could be the problem and the solution...;-) TCO (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The things I have said are the highlights out of such books that do individual treatments of the date and mintmarks. The thing is, for the general interest reader, it gets too technical, while for the collector, he doesn't want to hear it from us, he'll either have or review the books.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Layout of images is really crisp, congrats. I do wonder about using the images for the sculptor and engraver as their medals. You can't see them as well as in a real photo. (It really is a picture of the medal, not the man and we lose contrast and detail.) I guess you were trying to keep it all coins, but I almost wonder if we end up appreciating some non-coin-y images.

I understand. I had started with an image of Roberts, but it's left facing, and as you may notice, almost all the images are left facing, even the birds! The Roberts medal is at least right-facing. BTW, inclusion of the medals serves a more serious purpose: it lets the reader see Barber's work, the only opportunity in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Wire rim eagle image is fuzzy. Also small. Should we not display at same size as regular coin (for comparison)?

Better than what was there until yesterday (you might want to check to see if what you saw is what is still there).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going off the old one.TCO (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Wonder if we had some more analytical image somewhere towards end, for visual appeal and also to describe some of the stuff that is easier scanned that way than only in prose (a table, a chart; perhaps of numismatic value or circulation numbers or mint mark versions or the like).

I'm open to suggestions, but I don't have that kind of image talent.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I's have to read it to figure it out, but think about if you were giving a presentation at work using a Powerpoint. I suspect something like numbers produced per year per mint, and current valuation, etc. would be helpful in a table format. (maybe a bar or line chart, or even a pie). (I really think it would be good for you to take a hack at it, in terms of what content would be good. As far as making the image...MissMJ will do that for you, very well, if you just ask nicely.) Think of the kind of reader who will skip to those sections. Also that in general comparing numeric data is hard in sentences, but easier in tables or graphs (keep the sentences too, just give another way to absorb and process the info).TCO (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Layout is really nice, again. But if you want to show more or are having text wrap or siding issues, there are some tricks that can be done with gallery or tables of images (and not the junky galleries at the bottom with lots of white space).

I hesitate to move anything!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• I side with Tony, not Malleus on the tense of the coins differing. Just because we use past tense does not logically mean that we think the coins died or no longer differ, and I doubt the reader gets that impression. Plus the past-present-past within that sentence is an akward shift. (It's really a small deal, just my two cents.)

I favor "is", as well, but believe in not jumping up and down on the FAC just to see if it will break :)--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe an angled or side image would be cool. I don't have any gold coins and was intrigued what the stars look like, we can barely see them on the heads and tails shots.

If I ever get to photograph one from the side, I certainly will.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, nice work and good luck! Peace...TCO (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

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