Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acamptonectes/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 January 2021 [1].

---

Acamptonectes

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC), Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC), --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC), Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is the first "official" WP:WikiProject Palaeontology collaboration, and the first FAC about an ichthyosaur, a group of prehistoric marine reptiles which were convergently similar to dolphins. Having been named relatively recently, not much has been published on it (not even a size estimate), so most info available about it is summarised here. To fill in some blanks not covered by the scientific sources, we have also used some news sources and blog posts with non-controversial statements from the scientists involved. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 19:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done

• What makes Mr Wood's Fossils a high-quality reliable source? Geosciences?

As noted in the blurb, we have used some blogs and news sources to fill in blanks not covered by the scientific articles. This one is a guest post by one of the describers of Acamptonectes, and is only used to provide non-controversial information about how the team and article that described the animal came together. This kind of circumstantial info is interesting here, but not the kind of info included in scientific papers. And since it is evidently written by an expert in the field, it should pass per Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works. As for Geosciences, it is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Geosciences is published by MDPI, which has received mixed reviews at RSN. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems both those discussions conclude that it depends on the content. In this case, it is the following sentence "In 2012, palaeontologist Maria Zammit suggested the slender, shallow snout and tooth morphology of Acamptonectes indicate it had a different diet and lifestyle from other known Cretaceous ichthyosaurs. She suggested its slender tooth crowns with longitudinal ridges may have been used to impale rather than grasp prey, and its diet may thus have consisted of fleshy prey that did not have a hard exterior." This is in line with what some of the other sources say and not controversial. And the author, Maria Zammit, has published ichthyosaur papers in various journals[2], so there aren't really any red flags in that regard. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• FN4: in the first instance of this citation, do you mean to cite the correction or the actual article?

It is cited as a reference for the actual specimen number. I have moved the citation to a better location. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Non-English citations should indicate language. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

If you mean refs 20 and 21, the sources are actually in English, just with a Russian title. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

There are others that appear to be non-English, eg FN5. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I've now marked two sources as German. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Ichthy

As promised over at the Sennacherib FAC I'll take a look through this article soon. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Is the description of Platypterygius speetoni considered invalid because Appleby died before publishing his monograph? It has to have been published somehow (or we wouldn't know about it?) so I think it could be made more clear why the present species name is not the earlier named speetoni or why P. speetoni is not considered a synonym of some sort.

It's a nomen nudum (though the sources don't state this specifically), the article currently says "in a monograph that remained unpublished at the time of his death in 2003" and "Appleby's widow Valerie asked him to help finish Appleby's unpublished monograph." Should it be explained further? So the describers evidently read the unpublished monograph since they mention this name, but why they didn't use it in the published version I can't say... FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I managed to miss the bit about Valerie. So it seems that they got a look at the monograph but then did their own thing with the description. A bit strange but yeah, I don't think more needs to be said, then (and seems there isn't more that can be said). Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• "basioccipitals, stapes, and a basisphenoid" - what these are could be explained under "history of discovery" (as is done for other bones in this section). Looks like they are explained under the later "skull" section instead. Basioccipital, which is first mentioned here, is also unlinked here but linked at its second mention under "skull". Might be good to look through both these sections so that stuff is linked and explained at its earliest mention.

I'm not entirely sure how or why some of the glossing was moved down from first mention, perhaps because they were thought more relevant under description (or maybe because description was written first). But I'll try to move them up soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Moved up and glossed some more. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks good! One thing; looks like "basioccipital" is now not linked at all in the text (and seems to go unexplained). Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Some of the stuff under "postcranial skeleton" is unexplained as well, for instance "coracoid" and "acromial process".

Should be fixed, per above. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• On what basis were the clades Opthalmosaurinae and Platypterygiinae strongly suspected, and named by Arkhangelsky, if they had no support in previous analyses?

The point that Naish is making, I believe, specifically pertains to a lack of robust support from phylogenies. I think this sentence is worded poorly so I'll rewrite it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Baptanodon is linked twice under "skull"; this is the only real duplink as far as I can see (not counting the links in the cladogram for instance).

 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• Since it almost seems like each analysis got at least somewhat different results, would it be worthwile to include more than one cladogram (as in Mosasaurus) or is the 2020 analysis definitive in some way?

I've tried to make this clear through the organization (without straying into SYNTH) but I think there is a quasi-consensus in the literature for a clade of Acamptonectes, Baptanodon, Mollesaurus, and Ophthalmosaurus. I don't think it'd be particularly helpful to show any of the numerous other configurations, especially since a number have low resolution or support. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Right, works fine with just one, then, especially if many of the others don't have much resolution or support. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• "Photic zone", linked under "Speeton Clay", could also be explained in the text IMO.

Done, though is this too clunky? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Works fine I think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Good work on this everyone; I didn't find much to complain about and most of this is just nitpicks. After these have been addressed I'll take a second pass through before supporting. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

All above points should now be addressed, thanks for commenting! FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

No worries, it was an interesting read :) I've read through the entire thing a second time and didn't find anything else to bring up; will support once the last little thing above is taken care of. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Sheesh, think I got that last one! FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Support - Yep, that does it. The article looks good and covers, as far as I can tell, everything known about Acamptonectes. Marine reptiles receiving some much-needed attention is also a good thing, hope the rest of the process goes smoothly :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, if all goes well, there will be more marine reptiles at FAC in the not so far future! FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Opabinia

• Could benefit from a few more wikilinks eg subadult, soft tissue, splenial

Linked the ones you suggested. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• I know there's a rule out there somewhere about not repeating links too much, but the sections here are long and full of unfamiliar terminology, I'd consider linking at least once per top level section for some things (especially for people reading on mobile who only expanded the section they were interested in) - eg Ophthalmosaurus and stapes are unlinked anywhere in the description section; Arthropterygius is unlinked in the classification section even though the contrast to this genus is an important point; several specialized terms like trochanter and occipital condyle are linked in description but not classification.

I agree, but I think there's a precedent for not having duplicate links in FAs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:duplinks says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead", but I assume we could have duplinks for technical terms that are linked far below first occurrence in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

That's my personal preference, but eh. From the page stats it looks like most readers of this article are using desktop view, so it's not so much a problem that the collapsed sections on mobile mean you miss the links. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• There's a lot of individuals named but not linked, especially in the classification section when reporting on individual studies; are they notable and worth linking?

As the one who wrote the Classification section—in my opinion none of those names were of sufficiently wide general significance to warrant redlinks. Aubrey Roberts, Lene Delsett, Nikolay Zverkov, and Maxim Arkhangelsky are borderline cases I think. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Valentin Fischer is redlinked in the history section, but not in the lead; is that intentional? He seems notable from a quick google.

Redlinked in lead. Don't know if there's a policy against that. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Although the large eyes of Acamptonectes would have made it better adapted than platypterygiines to depth diving, it was probably a generalist predator." - I don't quite understand this. First, since platypterygiines are also ophthalmosaurids, don't they also have large eyes? (Much later in the article it turns out they're smaller, I think?) Second, I don't see how the second part of this sentence follows from the first - is depth diving considered specialized? There's another reference to this below in the paleobiogeography section - "successful and widespread notwithstanding their hyper-specialisation" - which I also don't quite follow. Feels like there's some background information here on ichthyosaur predation that maybe everyone who's read the sources knows, but isn't obvious if you're not familiar with the subject. There's a brief reference to the generalist/specialist question in ichthyosaur, but I think that only makes me more confused - there the distinction is between generalists and 'soft-prey specialists', but here Acamptonectes is described as a generalist that fed on soft prey.

You're right about "large"; I changed it to "larger". But ophthalmosaurines do have a body shape more specialized for deep diving, being more thunniform (tuna-like) in form than platypterygiines, and of course with larger eyes too. I believe FunkMonk wrote the text about it being a "generalist predator"? I assume there's different senses of the word "generalist" in play here that we need to disambiguate, but I'm not sure off the top of my head. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

From what I understand, "generalist" refers to predation, so I'm also guessing that hyper-specialized refers to anatomy. Zammit (2012) does place Acamptonectes in the 'pierce II/generalist' guild. Perhaps "generalist" should be changed to "generalist predator" in palaeobiology? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I only rearranged the text, but the source says "Ophthalmosaurines are considered as opportunistic generalists, because their tooth shape and wear closely resembles those in Aegirosaurus and adult O. icenicus, considered generalists." And if Zammit states it too, there must be reason to mention it. But yeah, perhaps it can be solved with "generalist predator", and adding the Zammit source there too? FunkMonk (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I've expanded this part a bit, with some explanation of the feeding guilds concept. But now the section is a bit jarring, because it starts off saying it fed the same way as every other of its relatives, and then goes on to say it was different. But those other sources are not mainly about this genus, but very general, so I wonder if some of them should be removed or if this can otherwise be reconciled? What do my co-nominators think? FunkMonk (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I've swapped the text around so that we lead with the pierce II/generalist guild rather than the unusual features. Having just re-read the relevant paper I think the latter conclusion is treated with less certainty in the text, and indeed Acamptonectes is grouped with several other ichthyosaurs by feeding guild. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a good solution. it should be noted that neither in Massare's 1987 paper or the 1997 follow up are the "pierce II/generalist" guilds correlated with icthyosaurs, so it would appear that it is in this way some ophthalmosaurids may be different from other ichthyosaurs, but I'm not sure. FunkMonk (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

On re-read I think I misunderstood the "hyper-specialisation" point further down as being a continuation of the predation question rather than about anatomy. I think these changes make the predation part clearer. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• "basipterygoids (also bones of the braincase)" - there weren't any previous bones of the braincase in this paragraph, maybe the level of simplification in the parentheticals is inconsistent? Or just get rid of "also"?

In writing that, I intended the "also" to refer to the Description, since the basipterygoid is not one of the previously-mentioned braincase bones. I reworded this to remove the "also" and clarify the bone's position. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Bremer support/decay index seems like a good redlink.

Maximum parsimony (phylogenetics) discusses it, so I linked it there. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• "the cladogenesis rate was lower in the Cretaceous" - having just read a lot of discussion of reclassifications and reinterpretations and multiple conflicting phylogenetic analyses, I wondered how well justified that statement was in the source. The paper does include a paragraph on potential taxonomic and preservation biases that I think deserves an extra sentence in the article - or even just a softening like "appeared to be lower".

Reworded to clarify that it is a computation. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• "ichthyosaurs were better adapted to their aquatic environment than any other group of marine reptiles" - at the time, or ever?

The source says "like no other reptile", which I assume encompasses contemporary reptiles. Indeed, I don't think there has been another reptilian lineage that developed a thunniform body shape. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Mostly nitpicks, the only issue of significance IMO is the need for an explanation or clarification of generalist/specialist predation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

On re-reading I don't see anything else that jumps out at me. Support. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Hog Farm

I've got some stuff of mine own to get caught back up on after coming off of Wikibreak, but I hope to get to this really soon. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

This review is likely to be submitted to the WikiCup. I have a little knowledge of extinct reptiles, but it is mostly self-taught through reading and does not extend to this species, so this is a lay perspective on the article.

Hopefully you'll know more after reading this! FunkMonk (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Occiput is overlinked in the history of discovery section

Fixed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• "In 1991, it was transferred to the Hunterian Museum of the University of Glasgow (GLAHM), when the geology department of Hull University—where it was catalogued under the specimen number GLAHM 132855[2] (but was also known as the "Speeton Clay ichthyosaur")—was closed." - This is a very long and complex sentence. Maybe break the part about the cataloging stuff into another sentence?

I've done this. Does this still maintain the original intended meaning (I did very little with the history section, so I want to be sure)? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• "that includes a fragmentary skull roof, a mandible, vertebrae, ribs" - How many vertebrae and ribs?

The source doesn't say, unfortunately. FunkMonk (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have a good recommendation on how to fix this, but the change in topics from Fischer naming the holotype to the 1909 specimen is very abrupt. Is there a way to transition or reorder this? The topic change was very jarring to me as a reader.

Would it help if the part about the 1909 specimen came last in the history section, so that the part about the assigned fossils from 2012 is more connected with the rest of the 2012 info? FunkMonk (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Tried it out for now. FunkMonk (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• It seems to be implied (but never directly stated) that the last two paragraphs of the history of development section also refer to 2012 events. Can the chronology be made a little clearer?~

Perhaps clearer now with the rejigging of the text mentioned above? FunkMonk (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Within the Ophthalmosaurinae, various positions have been recovered for Acamptonectes due to the same issues" - This might be some technical phrasing that I'm not familiar with, but is recovered the best word to indicate the intended meaning?

This is a common phrase in the literature [3]. I use both "found" and "recovered" for variety, I'm not sure there's a good third option. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

That's fine then. It's like a self-help book: Expanding Your Vocabulary through FAC Reviewing. Never knew recover could be used in that context. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

That's it from me, not a whole lot to complain about here. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "The second-found specimen" This is clumsy and unnecessary. Why not "this specimen"?

Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Liston and Fischer recognised the specimens belonged to a new species and genus." Maybe worth saying why two independent assignments to Platypterygius were wrong?

This somewhat goes into SYNTH territory but the autapomorphies (distinguishing characteristics) allow this conclusion to be established. One comment we could add—not sure if this is helpful—is that Platypterygius has historically been treated as a catch-all wastebasket taxon. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Liston and Fischer recognised the specimens belonged to a new species and genus." How about "Platypterygius has historically been treated as a catch-all wastebasket taxon and Liston and Fischer concluded that the specimens belong to a new species and genus. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Done, expanded on the reasons slightly. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• "After determining the Speeton Clay specimen is much larger than the Cremlingen specimen and thus likely more mature because juvenile specimens often have characteristics absent in adults" This seems a non-sequitur. Speeton specimen larger and thus more mature because juveniles often have different characteristics?

I have no clue on this one. FunkMonk? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

A bit late here, but this is what the source says which was paraphrased (could perhaps be done better): "With a ruthlessness that I am not entirely proud of, I asked him what he estimated the size of each animal to be – and he made clear that the German specimen was much smaller than the Speeton animal. I smiled sweetly at him (it’s possible) and said “Well, it is clear that the German animal cannot be the type specimen, as it might be a juvenile.” (The rationale is that characters that are juvenile might not be present in the adult form, so are not the safest for defining a taxon.)" FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I moved the "characteristics absent in adults" bit to the end of the sentence since that seems more pertinent to the designation of a holotype. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Good solution! FunkMonk (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Berriasian - I think it would be helpful to give the dates of this stage.

Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• "In 2014, Fischer and colleagues recognised this identification was disputable because they identified a basoccipital and humerus from Berriasian-aged rocks near Nettleton, Lincolnshire, as belonging to Ophthalmosaurus." I lose you here. Why should the discovery of Ophthalmosaurus bones affect the identification of the Greensand specimens? Is the Ophthalmosaurus article wrong in assigning it to the middle Jurassic?

The identification was based on the notion that the only Cretaceous ophthalmosaurine was Acamptonectes, as noted in the following sentence. These new specimens, I believe, are only tentatively Ophthalmosaurus. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• It is not clearly explained. I think you need to spell out in the first sentence of the paragraph that the identification was based on the assumption that Acamptonectes was the only Eurasian Cretaceous genus of the subfamily. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• "In 1909, German palaeontologist Ferdinand Broili named the species Ichthyosaurus brunsvicensis" What species? This appears to be about an earlier possible discovery of Acamptonectes but if so you should start by saying so.

Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

By that point of the article, it has already been stated that the paratype is from Germany, so it would seem the new sentence "Acamptonectes remains are also known from Germany" is redundant? And I'm not sure we can say for sure this specimen is Acamptonectes, they only considered it probable. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Should be fixed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• "The holotype and specimen NHMUK R11185 are large among the wider family Ophthalmosauridae" Larger than other Ophthalmosauridae?

Followed your suggestion but with modifications. The source only calls it "large" and not "largest". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• "The snout was also only 0.044 times as deep as it was long" Why not say how deep and how long?

This is the figure that is cited in the paper to show that the snout was slender. No information is given about how it was calculated (though premaxilla height / mandible length gives the same figure up to rounding). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• No change needed, but are holotype and type specimen synonyms?

In this case, yes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Checked up to 'Skull'. More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Further comments
• The article on Ophthalmosaurus appears to wrongly describe it as Jurassic. Can someone competent check this and change it if it is wrong.

Ophthalmosaurus is most certainly a Jurassic taxon ([4], [5], [6], etc.). It may be worth mentioning that there are possible remains from the Cretaceous, though (although I'm not sure how valid these assignments are). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: I've mentioned the Cretaceous Nettleton material in the article, as I couldn't find anything disputing it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Changed the lead and taxobox to match. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• autapomorphic could be linked to Autapomorphy.

Since these terms are quite similar, would that not count as duplinking? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• There is an error message on ref 7, saying that Fischer2016 is defined multiple times. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

My bad. Fixing shortly. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps comment on climate? Cretaceous as a whole was warmer than today, but does that apply to the Hauterivian? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I suppose that more could be added (this paper could potentially be useful), but since there is already data on temperature and sea level patterns under the Speeton Clay section, I'm not really sure if this is necessary? I could see if I can throw together some rough information regarding the global conditions in the Hauterivian, though. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• I accept that this is a more a matter of personal interest than something specifically relevant to this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Coord note @Nikkimaria: How are you feeling on the source reveiw? Ealdgyth (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Good enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2021 (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. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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