Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/C. J. Cregg/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2022 [1].

C. J. Cregg edit

Nominator(s): theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is Claudia Jean Cregg, a fictional character on NBC's The West Wing and my indirect namesake. She was a core cast member throughout the entirety of the show's run, and earned her portrayer, Allison Janney, more Emmys than anyone else on the show (justice for Martin Sheen, who played President Jed Bartlet and somehow didn't get any). Her portrayal was—while hampered by the show's misogynistic atmosphere—smart, funny, and assertive. I've been working on lots of West Wing characters articles (not to mention lots of people named Claudia), but I'm proud and excited that this is the first in both categories that I'm submitting for FA. Thanks in advance to everyone who weighs in! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Things that need consensus from new commenters:

  • Is three dates in the citations (date published, date archived, date accessed) too many? should the latter be cut?
    I don't see why. Archives can fail or be inaccessible, so it's important contextual information to put the access date, which can differ from the archive date. Urve (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from indopug edit

  • the infobox should be restricted to real-world information. In-universe information cannot really ever be objective and doesn't belong in an infobox. Especially since this one is so long and contains possibly trivial and uncited (I did searches for the family members and could find no mentions in the article body) information.
    • Hmm, I'm not so sure I agree with the idea that all in-universe information is subjective and has no place in the infobox. Looking around other fictional character FAs, lots of them do have in-universe sections (see Bart Simpson). That said, I've limited the in-universe section of the infobox to information relevant and cited in the prose. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, can "C. J." be spelt "CJ", which would look less clumsy in the text (especially when used frequently)?
    • I'm not wild about it – she is rather rare as a fictional character (the only biography-style articles that refer to their subjects by common name) with an acronym'd first name, but C. J. is a fairly common spelling in the media and my own preferred spelling. "C.J." seems incorrect, and "CJ" feels unprofessional. I have, however, removed the {{nbsp}} tags from in between C. and J., as I think those were a little overkill. It's like asking for US instead of U.S.; up to personal preference. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three dates in every citation is overkill. The reader doesn't need a retrieval date when he has access to a permanent link.—indopug (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieval dates are mandatory under the MOS. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:CITEWEB, "Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include . . . the date you retrieved (or accessed) the web page (required if the publication date is unknown)". Since pub dates are known here, retrieval dates are not mandatory at all.—indopug (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      let's put a pin in this for now; if there's consensus to remove the retrieval dates, we'll go for it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Indopug, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Guerillero edit

I will do the source review --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favorite characters from one of my favorite shows
  • Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." What is the significant influence of Gregg 2009?
  • Heisler 2009a and Heisler 2009b need the publication info
  • Why is Comic Book Resources a High Quality Reliable Source?
  • Why is The Cut a High Quality Reliable Source?
  • Is the tweet from AP covered anywhere else?
  • Missing author for The Journal News article
  • Post-Teen Vouge's 2016 slip into being a glorified mouthpiece of the DSA, I have a decent amount of skepticism of using them for political opinions
-- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pass -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle edit

  • Why is the character's first name used in preference to her surname? There is a mix on naming choices in this article generally that should have some logic to it. Simon Donovan is referred to by his last name, for example.
  • "Indeed" is used to start sentences four times. It's not really a great word to use, and adds unnecessary editorial emphasis to some statements over others in Wiki voice.
  • Indeed, C. J. is widely thought to be an adept, empathetic, confident, witty, and independent character with considerable depth, This is cited to four sources. Unless one of those sources plainly states that these are "widely thought" views of the character, this is technically a WP:SYNTH violation. None of the quotes provided with those citations suggest that this is a majority view, it just happens to be an amalgamation of sources which profess a positive view.
  • Since The West Wing frequently mixes the personal and professional, This is somewhat vague. Perhaps be more specific that the show covers both the "personal lives" and "professional careers" of its characters.
  • This is realized in the series finale, "Tomorrow"; in the episode, C. J. leaves the White House, choosing Danny instead. No need for the dramatic implication; just say outright, "choosing to pursue a relationship with Danny instead" or something applicable.
  • Critical reception of C. J. Cregg has been highly positive, both during and after the show's run. Is this claim directly supported by a reliable source?

-Indy beetle (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative replies: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The characters are referred to by their WP:COMMONNAME – some characters, like the show's core senior staff, are on a first-name basis with the audience (RSes) and each other. Other characters, like the president and side characters with honorifics, aren't generally referred to by first name by reliable sources or the show.
    • Cut the "indeed"s
    • I mean, I suppose you're right that the "widely thought" isn't in the sourcing, but I'm not sure I agree that that's a SYNTH problem. If every reliable source stated that the Earth was a globe, but none opined that every other source thought the exact same way, would we really not be allowed to say "the Earth is widely thought to be a globe" (that would be relevant in the Flat Earth article)? When we're looking for the common name of an article, do we need sources that say "this is most commonly referred to as A, but it's also B or C"? It seems a strange interpretation of SYNTH to say that editors are responsible for assessing the attitude of reliable sources as it relates to due weight, but aren't allowed to express that in prose. That said, I'd be happy to look for broader sources, or change to "has been described as" to narrow the scope to those for, but I don't know if I take much issue with it.
      • Well, since it is the viewpoint of RSes, I just put it in wikivoice.
    • Fixed the sentence in the reception section
    • Fixed "personal/professional" and C. J./Danny
  • Sorry for the delay, Indy beetle! Stuff's been crazy- I think I've got it now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • C. J. is widely thought to be a smart, strong, witty, and thoughtful character, - by whom? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably it's over-emotional? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like the awards part is probably more important, and should come before the rest of the lede. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed "widely thought" to "portrayed as"
    • "Overemotional" is a defined word – I presume it was de-hyphenated?
    • These awards tend to be pretty self-involved – other than the occasional reference to support Janney's acting prowess, it wasn't heavily discussed by reliable sources. The bulk of the reporting tends to cover the other stuff – plus, the awards are pretty lengthy and a little boring. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: I've made some replies :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Lee Vilenski, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lee Vilenski: - I think this is probably the third ping you're getting from me going through the older FACs, but just want to make sure you didn't miss Gog's question above. Hog Farm Talk 19:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd usually go into more depths here (there are some things on this page that need tweaking), but I'm down on time. I have nothing here that would make me oppose, so I'll conditionally support, with the caveat that if anyone opposes I'd like a ping. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        courtesy ping to Hog Farm :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 16:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda edit

I feel invited to another subject I don't know, will comment as I read, looking at the lead last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

name

  • I am puzzled by C. J. Cregg vs. the full name. If the character is known by the abbreviated form, that should also show on top of the infobox, and be explained with a bold name in the lead. Otherwise the infobox is fine, just "children at least one" tells me nothing at this point.
    • In the day-to-day of the show, she goes by "C. J." – if she walked up to you and introduced herself, she'd tell you that she's "C. J. Cregg". If she had to sign a mortgage, that'd probably be "Claudia Jean Cregg". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think, even if this a character, I'd would like to see the two names handled the same way as for a real person, - if she is commonly C. J. Gregg, that should be bold in the first paragraph, and be the header of the infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TOC

Creation

  • Forgive me, but knowing nothing, not the series, not the actress, I'd like first a bit of what kind of character in what kind of series. Yes, there are links, but three sentences of a general introduction of the context wouldn't hurt. Actress probably last, unless it is completely determined by her - which I don't know yet.
    • Hmm... let me brainstorm on this a bit. I'm generally quite averse to putting in-universe information in the real-world section, but there might be some context I can give anyway.
    • I've given this a lot of thought, and I don't think giving in-universe details about the characters is good for the real-world section. I really prefer maintaining that separation between the two, and any information I'd be comfortable putting up there would already appear in the lead. This isn't a story, it's an encyclopedia article – I think it's okay to keep that information in its section. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casting

  • Once Sorkin has been introduced, surname is enough.
    • I'll say this once up here, because unlike my policy on given names, I do mind repetition on this. I often find that this minimalistic policy of given names/surnames is too restrictive, and harmful in writing an article. Some names are only thrown around two or three times; it's easier to build an impression in the mind of the reader if they can instantly connect these names together, instead of mentioning a full name once in the first body paragraph and then throwing in a last name near the end. That's something I often find annoying in reading others' articles, especially when I'm Ctrl+F hopping for a single section. Having to track down where the author's article felt a single first name mention was enough and putting together who this person is and why they're important is frustrating. Instead, for names that only come up a few times, I prefer to repeat both the given and surname, to keep a clear, consistent identifier the reader can internalize. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find all the details about the actresses relationship to the character a bit premature, not yet knowing what character that is.
  • The image caption repeats much of the prose, while I'd prefer to know when it was taken, and if it is the actress in private, the character, or the character in the other show mentioned.
    • Hmm. I had an image caption like you describe over at Mrs. Landingham, but I got dinged because simply picturing the actor wasn't enough to demonstrate relevancy. I developed that caption style because of that. Do you think it'd be okay to switch back? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please take this up with the other editor. I want to see in a caption what a pic shows, more than context. This caption doesn't tell me if this is a private pic, or from one show or from another, which would be minimum I expect from a caption. The reasons for her being chosen are not pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I like the present caption better, I think "portrayer" and "pictured" make it needlessly complicated. How about: "J, who played C, in 2014"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance

  • Once Lyn Paolo is introduced, Paolo is enough.

Character ..

  • I think I'd prefer to know that part before the details of casting and appearance.
  • more given names that are not needed

Personality

  • ref order
  • "that a relationship would "hurt my reputation" - I think this doesn't need to be a quote, to avoid third person here, first person there: "that a relationship would hurt her reputation"
    • Both fixed :)

Romance

  • Why is it C. J. and Danny here, but Donovan there?
    • C. J. and Danny (in particular, C. J.) are regular characters on the show without formal titles – so, on the show (and in RSes), they're referred to by their common names. Donovan, however, is a special recurring character for only a season, and since he works for the Secret Service, he's usually referred to as Donovan or Agent Donovan – not Simon. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism

  • "Leo, who relayed the staffers' guesses to the president, left out C. J.'s predictions, which she suspected was because she was a woman. In the end, C. J. was shown to have made the correct guess." - I understand not wanting to repeat "predictions" but "guess" sounds wrong if it should be stressed that she had the best evaluation.
    • Well, "prediction" is generally more certain than "guess" (a prediction is kind of an educated guess), so I don't see what's wrong with setting up C. J. as the more competent forecaster here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • guess (without "educated") for me is still only by chance, but that may be just me --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... she is introduced as the "very lovely, the very talented – Claudia Jean Cregg". He then tells the entire room ..." - who is "he"?
    • Whoops! fixed.

Lead

  • just general at this point: I think it is too short, but too long repeating all these awards. Will look again tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me know – thanks, Gerda! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gerda Arendt: I think I've responded to everything now :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gerda Arendt? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am with you for the explanations, but would like to read once more, in the light of them. I had hoped to do that on Monday, but both here and RL more urgent things came in between (here Stefan Geosits and Kurt Equiluz), sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I now gave you a bit of feedback above, and all without a response is taken as you explained.
      • Lead once more:
        • Can we have a year for the sixth season, or do we just assume 2005 by thinking season is year?
        • I think the lead has too much detail about the awards.
        • Things I could imagine to be in the lead: number of episodes, about her character "empathetic", "emotionally vulnarable", "politically inept" (first) but "develops into a politically astute character, sometimes more so than her male counterparts", and the BBC as quite a to-the point summary.
      • See also: I don't need it. Two of the items are in the navbox, and the third could just be linked, no? It seems nothing particular for this article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Gerda Arendt: Thanks for getting back to me! I've added the year for the sixth season (1999 + five seasons later = 2004), fleshed out the lead and trimmed the awards, changed the image's caption, and cut out the "see also" section. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you, I like it better. I feel that first to say how the character is portrayed, and then who designed, puts it the chronologically wrong way. You might use that first sentence further up to give a general idea. I feel that the romance episode is not really lead-worthy, but again, that may be just me. I might rather include other reception items. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I looked again now, and while I'm happy with the first and the last para, the center is not yet "there" for me. "C. J. is portrayed as a smart, strong, witty, and thoughtful character, but she is frequently patronized and objectified by the men on the show. Aaron Sorkin, the show's creator, designed her to be assertive and independent from men. Initially, she is portrayed as politically inept, but she quickly becomes one of the most respected and savvy characters on the show. She is also sometimes portrayed as over-emotional, a trait criticized by reviewers as a misogynistic stereotype. Her onscreen romance with Danny Concannon, a senior White House reporter, was also criticized by commentators as unfairly subject to the "woman-as-traitor" trope." As said before, first "is portrayed" and then "designed" is the wrong order for my understanding. I think the para uses "also" too much, and "also sometimes" is top saying nothing for me. "woman-as-traitor" trope: I'd need to look up what that means. All this could be just me who would so like to end with the "most respected character" bit ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I've reworked the lead some – I think it's definitely a lot better. The romance was a not-insignificant part of her character, so it should probably stay (I can try to slim it down a little)? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like it much better. Please find a way to not use "portrayed" three times, which should be easy as the article is not about an actress but the character, so you might say what she does. "Despite C. J.'s shortcomings and surroundings", - I'd argue that it might be because of her complexity that she is a believable character. One question about a pic caption is open (further up), but we are almost there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I can't parse your second idea here, but I fixed the first and third? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and support. The second: I think that her character might be the best not despite her "shortcomings", but in a way because of them, as a complex human being with shortcomings. Like Percy Grainger (born on this day). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:CJ_Cregg.jpg: is there a reason to have two separate FURs for the same article? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Hmm, not sure what to do about the alt text, because the captions seem to do fine? If there's more information to be included, I'm happy to do so. As for the infobox image FUR, these image files are quite old and predate my involvement, so I never caught that one. Just fixed it up. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you really feel the captions are sufficient information for those who cannot see the files, you can use an alt of 'refer to caption' - I would suggest though that that would be sufficient only for the actress image. I'd also suggest merging some of the information from the second FUR into the remaining one, which is now quite sparse. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping back! @Nikkimaria: I've taken a run at adding some alts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alts that exist are fine - as above, the actress image can use a 'refer to caption' alt. Also don't use fixed px size, and the point re: merging above is pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Fixed the upright, and beefed up the FUR a little bit – for the actress image, you mean the second file (first non-infobox)? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you meant that the actress image is good to go, I think. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Allison-Janney in 2014.jpg currently has no |alt= at all - as above, it can just refer to caption, but should be included. For the FUR, suggest further expanding the purpose of use. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Done, I believe – sorry this has taken such a back-and-forth! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

  • "CCH Pounder". Why not 'C. C. H. Pounder'?
    • Difference in RS coverage – Claudia Jean is C. J., Carol Christine Hilaria is CCH. Just following along :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the MoS (MOS:INITIALS) treats this as a rare specific exception, so ok.
  • Link Guyanese.
    • Done!
  • There are a couple of duplinks.
    • I left in the duplinks for The Atlantic – doesn't hurt to leave an extra one in the quote box. I also left in an extra piped link to "Celestial Navigation", since I don't reaaally need to restate the episode title. Otherwise, fixed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insert a non-breaking space into every use of "C. J.".
    • Oh, jeez – okay, done.
  • "gave way for a "longer drape" ". Consider "way" → 'scope' or similar.
    • I changed it to "allowed for", that should be clearer.
  • "as intellectually on par with the male senior staff." I assume this is correct USEng? BritEng would have 'as intellectually on a par with the male senior staff.'
    • Someone's free to challenge me, but yeah, that doesn't look amiss to my understanding of AmEng.
  • In the "Romance" section the tense jumps from past to present and back. Could you pick one an stick to it.
    • Changed the one past section to present
  • Lead "Children: At least one"; article: "married to Danny with one child." Which? If the former, mention it in the article.
    • We only know about one, so I just made it 1 in the ibox.
  • "The host then tells the entire room during a commercial break that C. J. is not wearing pants." Why should telling the audience that C. J. is wearing a skirt be an issue? And why can they not see that for themselves?
    • I think the host was signaling that C. J. was in her underwear from the waist down, which wouldn't've been noticeable given the setup of the room (she was on a political punditry show, so she was obscured behind the big desk). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I think I get it. I guess that you had to have been there.
  • Are there so few sources that it is necessary to quote "represented the fantasy of the Bartlet White House better than anyone" twice?
    • I do want that one in the quotebox, and i usually leave one quote per reviewer. In this case, the review is pretty small, and that's the only substantially positive line (complaint on Sorkin's missteps with women). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reviewers also praised Janney's performance;The Cincinnati Enquirer wrote in 2001 that Janney "combines comedy, drama, and political savvy" in C. J., praising her ability to alternate between wit and seriousness throughout each episode." "... praised ... praising ...' Synonym time?
    • Synonym time indeed!
  • "in attempting to mimic". Is it accepted that Psaki was attempting to mimic C. J.?
    • Fixed that :)

That's all I have. Classy. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/C._J._Cregg/archive1&oldid=1101234813"