Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eduard Fraenkel/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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 22 March 2022 [1].

Eduard Fraenkel edit

Nominator(s): Modussiccandi (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the German classical scholar Eduard Fraenkel. He has by far the most eventful life of any classicist I've brought here: he started his career as a rising star in the German academic world, fled to England after Hitler came to power, and had an impactful second career as a refugee scholar at Oxford. The article was recently reviewed for GA status and improved by the generous comments of Amitchell125. I will be happy to work with your suggestions. Thank you, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass edit

  • Any photos published before 1927 would be in the public domain. I take it none were found?
  • File:Leo Friedrich retouched.jpg No PD-US rationale, likely still copyrighted because of URAA

The third image looks fine (t · c) buidhe 10:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Modussiccandi This is not a pass: needs response from you especially on the second point. (t · c) buidhe 00:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not getting back to you on this, Buidhe. Regarding the first point: I've been in touch with someone who might be able to provide a free alternative. However, until this lead yields some results, we might have to live with the fair-use image. Re. the second point: I just assumed that any picture of Leo, who died in 1914, would be in the public domain. Would you suggest I find a different image if that isn't the case? Modussiccandi (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the Friedrich photo, the photographer died in 1934, which means that it was still copyrighted in Germany on the URAA date, which means that it is likely copyrighted in the US (unless published before 1927). So yeah, either more documentation is needed or swap to a different photo with a solid PD-US rationale. (t · c) buidhe 10:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I have removed the picture of Leo and replaced it with an image of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service. Please let me know if there are any further issues regarding this or the other images in the article. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh edit

(edit conflict) Will try to take a look soon! Looks solid from a quick glance. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Few general citations inconsistencies and formatting errors:
    • Ref#8: "Burton & Toland 2020." — No page number provided. Does that imply that the complete page range of the source, "175–201", is used? Pretty long range for a single sentence.
      Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref#13: "Williams 1972, pp. 421–422" v. Ref#18: "Stray 2017, pp. 191–2" — Consistency required whether page ranges need complete page number to be repeated or not.
      Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref#65: "Elsner 2021, p. 323-324." — this page range needs a en-dash (–) in place of a hyphen (-)
      Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref#66: "Elsner 2021, p. 319-320." — same as above
      Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref#67: "Elsner 2021, p. 330-331." — same as above
      Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More later – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "by the National Socialist German Workers' Party" — can we just say "Nazi Party"?
Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the Roman comedian Plautus", "philosopher Iris Murdoch" — avoid linking two adjacent words, though if there is no better way to avoid this, feel free to ignore this comment.
  • "by the reviewer Herbert Jennings Rose as" — our article calls him just H. J. Rose. Which one is the commons name?
    Done (he seems to have signed as H. J. Rose), Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as "perhaps the most erudite that any Greek play has ever had"" — while the lead usually doesn't has citations, direct quotations are cited everywhere.
    Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""one of the most learned classical scholars of his time"" — same as above, though I'd argue that we should/can easily paraphrase it.
    Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the novelist" — upto you, but I'd say that linking 'novelist' appears a tiny bit of MOS:OL. Though, I am not sure if 'novelist' is an everyday word or not.
    Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to re–dedicate a" — I think we need a hyphen (-) in place of the en-dash (–).
    Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "garnered national media coverage." — National in the sense of British media coverage?
    Yes, national here means British. Should this be clarified? I though it would emerge from the fact that all the relevant events happened in the UK. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his cousin Ernst Fraenkel was an expert on the Baltic languages" — Does the source also refers Ernst Fraenkel as 'expert'? If yes, no issues then.
    The source just says that he was a Baltic linguist. I've adjusted accordingly. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his father's uncle, Ludwig Taube, was" — Per our article, his name is Ludwig Traube, see Ludwig Traube (palaeographer)
    Done; a silly mistake of mine (the former means 'pigeon', the latter 'grape' in German). Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from 1935 until 1953" v. "From 1897 to 1906" — Both the versions are acceptable, just curious about the choice of 'until' and 'to'. (Don't be too concerned about this one, there is nothing wrong here, just me being super-nitpicky!)
    I didn't actually put any thought into the choice. Would you say that one or the other is preferable in a given case? Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from his doctoral thesis" v. "in his doctoral dissertation" — Again, both versions are correct. But, if here, 'thesis' and 'dissertation' are the same thing, suggesting to be consistent.
    Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the winter of 1907" — MOS:SEASON discourages the use of seasons to refer to a particular time of the year.
    Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't link Berlin, but do link Munich.
    I'm not sure I've linked Berlin anywhere. There is one link that goes to Humboldt University of Berlin but shows as Berlin. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is exactly my point. If Munich is linked, why isn't Berlin? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, now I understand. The reason is because MOS:OVERLINK suggests that locations that will be familiar to most readers should not be linked. For me, capitals of existing nations fall into that category. Munich, on the other hand, not. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and his National Socialist German Workers' Party had" — Readers would be more familiar with the term "Nazi Party" than "National Socialist German Workers' Party".
    Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the summer of 1934", "for the coming winter", "autumn 1936 to spring 1942" — MOS:SEASON
    Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for the The Sunday Times" — do we need to repeat 'the'?
    Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his wife's health began to deteriorate. Her death on 5 February 1970 led to Fraenkel's suicide on the same day." — Do sources discuss how he committed suicide?
    The details of his death are not described in the sources I had access to. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so which source explicitly claims the sensitive charge of 'suicide'? The source you cite just says: "But Ruth's health gave him more and more cause for worry, and when she died of 5 February 1970, he had no will to continue living". In addition to that, I found few obituaries: [2], [3], [4]. None of them claim that he committed suicide, just say that he dies hours apart his wife. Please not that sensitive claims such as suicides requires exceptional sources. And I'd say that it is not fine to assume that "he had no will to continue living" = suicide. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Lloyd-Jones 2004 (a source of the highest quality), you'll see that he says about Fraenkel's death: ... Fraenkel chose not to survive her and died at his home. There is no doubt Lloyd-Jones says that Fraenkel took his own life. Quite apart from this, I would say that he had no will to continue living is merely a thinly veiled, decorous way of saying 'suicide'. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll still like to hear what our medical editors say; can that narrow definition be used to cite an sensitive claim of suicide? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same point about Herbert Jennings Rose in the prose as well.
    Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, I found the "Contributions to classical scholarship" section very well written.
    Thank you very much. I appreciate it, especially coming from you. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""express the true excitement of intellectual discovery"." — better add a citation immediately after the quote.
    The reason I didn't add the citation right after the quote is because there is another quote in the next sentence that comes from the same source. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Second World War" can take a link
    Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is mostly it. I hope that comments would be useful. Thanks for this excellent article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral until the point about assertion of suicide is further clarified. Advise of a coordinator of medical editor is appreciated. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from passerby: I added a source from the Gnomon obituary, which, while still somewhat euphemistic in the British style, I think is clear enough. Note also this book (found with a Google Books search), which indicates Fraenkel died from an intentional barbiturates overdose. blameless 02:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is reliable enough, and explicitly mentions that he committed suicide. Other than that, very solid article. I Support it's promotion as a FA. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by JBchrch edit

Congrats on your adminship Modussiccandi! Will take a look over the coming days. JBchrch talk 18:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  • Why is Berlin is in “education” and Göttingen in “Alma mater”? Not that I ever truly understood the difference between these two parameters, but since you make a distinction, I figured I would prong at it.
  • Without being 100% sure why I put it there, I think it's because of a believe held by some editors that Alma Mater is the last institution of one's education. I don't subscribe to that view, so will be happy to put everything under 'Education'. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "Antisemitic legislation". I find the wikilink to antisemitism a bit underwhelming. Would we have a better target?
  • I agree, it's not great. We can't link to Nuremberg Laws because Fraenkel's case preceded those, but perhaps a link to the laws themselves would do. (I have implemented this suggestion for the time being.) Modussiccandi (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "introduced by the Nazi Party" -> enacted in Nazi Germany?
  • "Corpus Christi College, Oxford". I am aware that Oxonians (and Cantabrigians) place a heavy weight on the constituent colleges, but I often feel like texts written for a general readership should refer to the University of Oxford rather than the college, for reasons analogous to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:WORLDVIEW.
  • You are right: it's a bit insider-ish to constantly refer to the constituent parts of a well-known university. In this instance, the name of the uni itself will work. Sometimes, however, it's better to have the name of the college since their not always equivalent. So, in a nutshell, I will evaluate these on a case by case basis. (I've changed this one to Oxford University). Modussiccandi (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its sub-discipline". It seems to me like the sub-discipline we are talking about is not defined or mentionned earlier?
  • "teaching at Oxford". If you decide to not act on the "Corpus Christi College" comment, I would suggest teaching at the University of Oxford, for analogous reasons.
  • "In 2017, an effort by the Corpus Christi student body to re-dedicate a room in the college honouring Fraenkel on account of allegations of sexual misconduct garnered national media coverage." I’m not a fan of this sentence :
  • Grammatically, the core claim of the sentence is that the effort by the student body garnered national coverage. Given the body and its source (I’m looking at Elsner p. 319 and 332), the core claim should be that the college decided to rename the room based on allegations of sexual harassment (possibly “on a request/proposition by the student body”).
  • Which leads me to the use of "misconduct" instead of "harassment". Misconduct seems to be a euphemism compared to "harassment", which is also the term used by Elsner p. 319 and 333.
  • Which leads me to (what I understand to be) other euphemisms in this sentence which I’m not a fan of, i.e. "re-dedicate" and "honouring": I would simply say that the room was renamed, as Elsner p. 319 does (possibly “and his portrait removed”)
  • I have reconfigured the sentence in accordance with your comments. Please let me know if you think it should be tweaked further. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All good! JBchrch talk 17:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. JBchrch talk 01:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and education

  • "assimilated into the German Empire" Is that correctly worded? Drawing from a cultural background with which I'm more familiar, the sentence "assimilated into the French Republic" would sound strange.
  • I was unsure as to how to phrase this. I've now gone for 'German society' as a more natural (?) option. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's fine, but perhaps simply saying "His family were Jewish but had assimilated and prospered economically" would be sufficient if we want to avoid this problem. JBchrch talk 17:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, ”legal texts” would imply that the publishing house was publishing collections of laws like Deutsche Gesetze, while the source says it was publishing legal commentaries, which are scholarly works. We could say “legal books” or “law books”.
    Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • « one of whom was the future mathematician Edward Fraenkel” I would remove “future”.
    Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exile in England

  • “Trinity College, Cambridge” Same comment as above about the constituent colleges.
  • This time, I think it's better to leave the college in. The Bevan fellowship was given by Trinity, not the university. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have the sourcing to give more details about what the seminars looked like? How they worked? What they did?
    • Without looking at the source right now, I'm sure that they read the text in the Greek and commented on linguistic/philological/literary/historical points of interest. I will go back to the sourcing and try to see if anything can be found. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have gone to the best source on these seminars that I have (Stray 2017) and found that it didn't reveal much detail about their method. I have added a clause to the description of the seminars in the article, but it's nothing to write home about. I think one problem may be that that the authors of these sources have in mind an audience of classicists, who'll already know what seminars such as these are like. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement and death

  • ”Her death on 5 February 1970 led to Fraenkel's suicide on the same day”. That’s a lot to take in for one sentence. I would prefer to break it up into two, with the first one saying that Ruth (see also WP:SPOUSE) died on 5 February and the second saying he committed suicide on the same day.

Still more to come. JBchrch talk 20:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Modussiccandi I'm sorry for the delay, but you can expect answers to your replies, and the rest of my comments by the end of the week. JBchrch talk 05:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the Hugh-Lloyd Jones quote added per the above review is useful. Perhaps too hagiographic for the encyclopedic tone.

Contributions to classical scholarship

  • "his characters' habit to intimate their own transformation into someone else" (emph added). Perhaps it's just me but I'm not sure I understand this sentence.
    • Ah yes, this sentence... I think I tinkered with it because of the GA review, but essentially what it tries to say is that people suggests that they might be transformed into someone else. 'Intimate' was suggested by the reviewer as a more neutral version of what I had written; have a look at Talk:Eduard Fraenkel/GA1#5.1 Plautus. I'm actually fairly happy with 'intimate', but I would be willing to change it if you were to insist. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at times very frustrating". I think readers may be curious why that is, but I understand that it's perhaps difficult to integrate the whole argument without giving it UNDUE weight.

Last bit later or tomorrow. JBchrch talk 23:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

  • Perhaps we could use some of the material of §2 to add a few words about the content description of Fraenkel's seminar, per the above discussion?
  • Reading the sources, it seems like the allegations involve three women, not two (Iris Murdoch, Imogen Wrong, Mary Warnock)?
    • Imogen Wrong was represented in the article as 'another female student'. I've add her name now. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading the source, again, one element that seems to be important is the context of the sexual misconduct, i.e. that it happened during individual tutorials in Fraenkel's office. It seems to me that this is an important point to understand the contemporary reaction and that it would be fair to mention.
  • "allegations of sexual misconduct" -> "allegations of sexual harassment", per the sources. JBchrch talk 05:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good, supporting. JBchrch talk 16:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda edit

I met the article on DYK and am curious. Will comment as I read, lead at the end when I know more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  • birth name to ibox?
  • do the relatives deserve mentioning?
    • I thought I'd include them because they appear in the body of the article. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest to have all institutes after "education", as the Alma Mater concept is not really German

Early

  • "he enrolled at the University of Berlin to study law, as antisemitic hiring conventions would have made it difficult to obtain a teaching position at a German university" - not sure what the hiring convention has to do with the choice of subject, - probably my problem
    • The point is that Fraenkel chose not study Classics because the most probable career route (becoming a university lecturer) was going to be difficult to attain for him. So he studied law to become a lawyer, a field where, presumably, his status as a Jew matters less (at least in 1906). Modussiccandi (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps say that something like it in the article, that he was more interested in Classics but ... - Completely unrelated: please indent following the essay on top of User talk:Drmies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • translate title of thesis?

Career in Germany

  • I am confused by first 1913 Munich, then 1907 Berlin
    • Thank you for spotting this. The right year was 1917, Modussiccandi (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "alma mater" seems wrong for a German place

Exile ...

  • "Fraenkel spent the part of 1934" - why "the", and which?
    • I have removed the superfluous 'the'. The part referred to is the summer. I changed 'summer' to 'part' in response to a reviewer's comment because we shouldn't use the names of seasons in articles because they differ in different parts of the world. Since I didn't know the precise months, I settled for the vague 'part'. I'm definitely open to suggestions. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

  • "the philosopher Mary Warnock wrote that Fraenkel had touched her ..." - I was not prepared for "touched" meaning literally "touch", because the German "berührt" is often used to describe being positively influenced. - I also wonder if it belongs under "Reception". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right, the German connotation of 'berühren' is different. However, English idiom is clearer on this, so I would prefer to keep the current word choice. Regarding the position in the 'Reception' section: I put it there because it forms part of a larger thematic complex on how Fr. was discussed after his death. You are right to say that these events happened while he was alive, but they only became public knowledge afterwards. On the whole, I found it best to tell the story of these controversial events in the reception section as opposed to having different bits in two sections. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, and all fine, just one minor thing. I have rehearsal today, will read the lead probably tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • I don't understand why University of Oxford is linked when mentioned the second time (while I understand why it was not linked the first).
    • I'm a bit lost here, Gerda. Should we not want to link only the first occurrence? This would make the current set-up less than optimal. At present, the only reason why the Uni is not linked in the first sentence is my own negligence. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now I'm a bit lost, because the first occurrence is still not linked, in the first sentence, - which I understand because the link to the Corpus Christi Classics chair is there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for your support! I've now simply linked the first occurrence and removed the other link to Oxford that existed in the lead. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "asserting the innovativeness of Plautus's plays", - isn't it Plautus who was innovative? - on top of a dislike for constructions such as "innovativeness"
  • "described by the reviewer H. J. Rose" - "the reviewer" seems somewhat pale to me, so pale that we could drop it, - or give him more weight by saying why we should listen to him?
  • can we phrase the last item without ending on "harassment"? Perhaps have the first sentence - summing his work up - as the very last? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "he inaugurated a weekly seminar on classical texts" - source?
    • the seminars are treated (with different sources) in the 'Exile in England' section. The text in the body of the reviewed version said 'regularly', which I have changed to once a week. The source (Stray 2017) also reflects this. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you elaborate? I see there is general discussion of seminars in the text, but I'm having trouble locating this specific claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now I understand. I've changed to he lead to say that he 'led' the seminars, which takes away the stronger claim of 'inaugurated'. The corresponding text in the body says 'he also taught seminars on both Greek and Latin texts'. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These classes constituted an innovation to English teaching practices" - source?
    • In the body, this appears as "they were a feature of European academic life that was rare at Oxford before Fraenkel's arrival". The source is Stray (2017) p. 191. Should I adjust the wording in the lead to make these match more closely? Modussiccandi (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would say so - "rare at Oxford" doesn't necessarily equate to "innovation to English". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are right. I have adjusted the text of the lead to be closer to that of the body. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2017, following a petition by the student body, Corpus Christi decided to re-name a room in the college that had been named after Fraenkel" - text states renaming occurred in 2018
  • Check page formatting - ranges should use "pp"
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address you replies, Nikkimaria. Is there anything else in terms of sourcing that I should take care of? Modussiccandi (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 13 March 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/Eduard_Fraenkel/archive1&oldid=1078609475"