Talk:Whiskey Rebellion/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am going to review this article for possible GA status. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 23:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Shearonink (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

A note to the nominator & any interested editors - This article is MASSIVE. It will take me quite a bit of time to go through everything. Patience, I'll go as fast as I can and still do the job right. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Thanks especially to User:Czar for their redrafting of the lead section. Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   There are some issues with the references.

   Ref 57: History News Network/Why the Whiskey Rebellion Is Worth Recalling Now/William Hogeland - the URL has changed and needs to be adjusted to the most recent version

   Works Frequently Cited: "The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794: A Democratic Working-Class Insurrection" ->this specific URL needs to be updated to most recent URL and the UGA URL needs to be updated as well.

   Ref #117 - WPXI/Whiskey Rebellion Festival URL needs to be updated.

   Ref #80 seemed to time-out and, anyway, is malformed for purposes of a reference - The www.phmc.state.pa.us URL only points to the general PA Historical marker search page and, as such, is somewhat useless for purposes of verifiability (even though it does give the GPS coordinates of the marker of ?NG: -79.92258, LAT: 40.20015). A better linkage would be to the ExlorePA.Com, which has a direct link to the Whiskey Point marker text along with more explanatory content. ExplorePA.Com qualifies as a reliable source, please refer to their Site History page. Shearonink (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

   The above issues seem to have been mostly fixed-up (thanks to JerrySa1). My point is that it serves the reader well, who wants to verify information stated within a WP article, if the URLs are as up-to-date as possible at the time of the Review. Yes, the URLs do resolve and take the reader to the proper information - but if they are changed internally yet again, the chances that they won't resolve is increased.

   When I ran the Checklinks tool, these are the two remaining problematic results:

   • http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/washington-co-festival-marks-whiskey-rebellion/nDXyD/ isn't completely correct. It resolves to http://www.wpxi.com/news/washington-co-festival-marks-whiskey-rebellion/201550336 and should be updated.
   • http://www.uga.edu/colonialseminar/ is what is in the WP article, it should be rendered as: http://colonialseminar.uga.edu/ .

   Shearonink (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

   ✓ done czar 04:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

   All the 'On hold' referencing issues - 2A/2B/2C - will be converted to 'yes' as soon as the 5 verification needed/citation needed templates are dealt with. Shearonink (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   I am able to put some time into this an able to acssss the scientific resources based upon my usual editing activities on scientific articles. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   I ran the copyvio tool and am unable to find any plagiarism/copyrights problems.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   I need to do some further digging on this particular issue. Presently, I am not sure that all viewpoints are fairly represented. Shearonink (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

   I would be more comfortable if there were a separate section dealing with the different attitudes towards the Rebellion. Good, bad, and so on. Past and present scholars, people of that era's opinions on the Rebellion are mentioned within the individual sections but I think a separate section delineating the various specific controversies would serve the article well. Shearonink (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

    Working Done (see below). Shearonink (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

   Other perspectives of the rebellion are described in the 'Aftermath' section that now appears near the bottom of the article. In this section the reader can get an idea of how the 'easteners' at the time viewed the rebellion. I have included the perspective of a notable, visiting Frenchman on the consequences of the rebellion. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   I disagree with the inclusion of File:USA Pennsylvania location map.svg. The dot on the Pennsylvania map showing where Whiskey Point is/was doesn't really convey any particular meaning. Yes, we can tell from the image that this was somewhere in the entire state of Pennsylvania,but the dot is so big on that map... I think a more close-up map of the area, showing where Whiskey Point was/is would make more sense visually. I take it that these infoboxes are used to show Historical markers or locations of places on articles about history and that's a good thing - readers need to know where history took place, but I disagree with the scale. If the image showed where Pittsburgh is and where Monongahela is in relation to Pgh, then that might make more sense to me. Shearonink (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

   There are many images that could be substituted for the ones you don't believe to be appropriate, that won't be a problem. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

   ✓ done. I removed the map. The template's map options are Pennsylvania or Pittsburgh, and we would need something in-between. czar 04:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Many thanks to User:Czar and to User:Barbara (WVS) for all their hard work adjusting the text and correcting various issues that were found in the course of this Review. Shearonink (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

General comments

I am going to put some individual issues in this section. Shearonink (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Counties

Allegheny, Fayette, Westmoreland and Washington counties are mentioned as being important but only one incident - the meeting at Old Redstone Fort - is mentioned as happening in Fayette. What about the other Liberty Poles, like the one at Fayette County's Fort Gaddis? Also, only 2 incidents are mentioned as happening in Washington, none in Westmoreland. Shearonink (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I will need to go over that part of the article more thoroughly. "Incidents" might be the wrong word since much of the activity related to the Whiskey Rebellion happened in small, local organizing efforts (I guess secret meetings) in churches and homes. Aggressive resistance was not as common. Lots of editorials and correspondence related to the non-agressive, non-physical confrontations abounded since these were the only means of communication. Not that this will make a difference, but in the past I have made a special effort to visit the historical sites in our area related to the W.Rebellion and in every instance the site visited was also a site where meetings took place to organize the rebellion. I will have to dig up those references. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Working

Comment. Subsequent edits have taken care of this issue insofar as a GA Review is concerned. I think that this could be an area for future improvement towards a possible WP:FA. Shearonink (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

"Grains"

The fact that whiskey could be made from rye should be specifically mentioned - it wasn't just corn. Rye was a huge crop on the frontier. Shearonink (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

A most excellent point - and it really DOES matter. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Working Done (see below). Shearonink (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikilinks and a better description of the grains are now contained in the lead. Apparently whiskey is defined as a beverage of 160 or less proof and being aged in burnt oak barrels. Unfortunately, this is a contemporary definition and I am still searching for documentation from the late 1700s on the constituents of whiskey. Readers would probably find the contemporary definition valuable and I suspect that whatever grains happened to be on hand at the time were turned into mash and fermented for whiskey. Another barrier to finding the specific recipes for whiskey mash at the time are the probable assumptions that 'everyone just knows' and so why would it be documented? So I am still looking... Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan Forman

The quote is long enough that it should be set aside in a quote box or something similar. Shearonink (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Will do. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done

References

I am troubled that the form of the various references do not seem to be in agreement with each other. Shearonink (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This is still an issue. There are "cite books", "cite webs", a "cite news" and also parenthetical referencing for Hogeland, Slaughter, Howlett, Chernow, and Elkins & McKitrick's books. The date parameters are not in agreement between the various cite forms. Shearonink (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

By date parameters I mean that the formats of the dates are different, some are in dd-Month-yyyy and some are in Month-dd-yyyy. Shearonink (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Consistency in the referencing style is not necessary for an article to be considered a GA. But glaring inconsistencies can certainly be fixed. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ date formatting resolved. I would prefer to see the refs reformatted with the standard template, but I imagine it is a low priority. czar 02:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Rev War veterans/Western grievances

Wasn't another of the vets grievances was that they hadn't been paid what they had been promised? Also, one paragraph in this section (The main objection to the whiskey tax...) is unsourced. Shearonink (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Will review per your comment. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Working Done. (See below). Shearonink (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The rewriting of the lead section has taken care of some of this issue. Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

A description of subsequent 'grievances' is somewhat described in the 'Aftermath' section. Though our job is not to speculate, the pardoning of the 'rebels' is notable and is an example of conciliation on the part of Washington, who did not take Hamilton's advice of making examples of those challenging the powers of the federal government. What I am suggesting is this (I have found no references to support this): the grievances of the vets were partially met by the amnesty granted by Washington. Or perhaps another way of putting it is: "Hey, you might not be happy with your veteran's benefits, but at least you weren't hanged." Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Pittsburgh

I think the scale of the cities of western Pennsylvania is important to mention. After all, the population of Pittsburgh during 1791-94 wasn't a city of thousands...it only had about 400 people in it in 1791. Shearonink (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The article could be better mentioning the population by counties, rather than cities because the participants in the W.Rebellion were growers, not city dwellers. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Working Done (see below) Shearonink (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

(addressed in the following section) Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Population

I know that sources have apparently repeated the assertion that 7000 people gathered at Braddock's Field ("On 1 August, about 7,000 people gathered at Braddock's Field...") but I think this has to be in error - there were only about 400 people in Pittsburgh at the time...where did all these supposed people come from? Is the figure taken from Clymer's "somewhat exaggerated report greatly influenced the decisions made by the Washington administration"? Also, it seems to me that there is just no physical way for 7,000 people to fit into Braddock's Field.
According to the US Census in 1790 the greater Philadelphia-area had a population of about 43,000 and the overall population of the state was around 430,000, with most of those (obviously, yeah, that's not very exact) being in the eastern half of the state, near the more-settled coast as in Philadelphia. The figure should be described and sourced as "according to [whomever]" I am thinking the source of the figure would have been Clymer (or maybe someone else on the side of the Easterners/Federalists?) and would like a definitive description of where the figure originated. Shearonink (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I mean, think about it...where did all these asserted people come from? Where did they stay? How in the world did they travel to Braddock's Field? Even if this is accepted as part of the mythology of history, that doesn't mean it is a verifiable fact. Shearonink (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

This content will have to be verified, most certainly. But the total area of the city of Pittsburgh at that time was quite small, a fraction of today's area. I know this because of my own referencing work on a nearby city - Lawrenceville. The '400' is probably a typo, since I have a reference that states that the population of the city of Pittsburg (sic) at that time was 4000. The major route of travel at that time was a path (now Route 41), also called the National Highway which was quite a direct route from Pittsburg to Braddock's field. IF the content is verifiable at 4000 people being there, it will be true because I seriously doubt many city dwellers would have been there anyway - they weren't the ones losing their shirts over the taxation. It would have been the rye growers who populated Western PA, Northern WV and Eastern OH at that time. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I am very familiar with the "National Pike"/Old Route 40. As to the population of Pittsburgh, I'll work on digging up references that mention what the population was - whatever it might have been (I've seen figures less than 1000 but who knows where that comes from as well). And then there's always the 1790 Census...if I could just figure out how to get at the population of a city. The Braddock's Field/7000 number just strikes me as something that I see repeated in sources but no one says where it came from and I am curious about its provenance...my money's on Clymer's "somewhat sensational" report. "7000" sounds a lot more threatening than, say, 2000...if that figure of 7000 insurgents were reported to the national government, it would make sense to get out a 12,000+ military force. Shearonink (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

{{working}}

Comment. The population figures have been dealt with in enough detail for a GA Review. Shearonink (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: @Czar: Re: The number of men who were at the Braddock's Field militia gathering (and also Pittsburgh's population at the time...Baldwin's "Whiskey Rebels"/Page 30 states that Pittsburgh's population "was around 1000". A Penn State Journal article: https://journals.psu.edu/wph/article/download/1192/1040 (quoting the census) states that the Census gives the population of "Pittsburgh town" in 1790 was around 376. I took a look at the 1800 Census - that gives the Pitt Town population as being somewhere around 1400. http://files.usgwarchives.net/pa/allegheny/census/1800/pg020.txt.) All that being said, The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1789-1878 By Robert W. Coakley/Page 35 https://books.google.com/books?id=SMmJsJLKmvoC&pg=PA35#v=onepage&q&f=false says that the estimates were from 7000 to 15000 & The Whiskey Rebellion: A Resource Manual/Jerry Allan Clouse/Page 25 says that about 7000 men gathered at Braddock's Field and that was about half the population of the males in the region (not just Pittsburgh/Pitt Town(. I still wish the first source for the figure of 7000 militia members could be teased out from the references available to us but that is only my curiosity and beyond the scope or a GA Review. Carry on. Shearonink (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: pinging people after the fact doesn't work; lemme do it for you: @Czar:. Graham87 03:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if that ping was somehow out of order in the order of WP-things, it's just that I realized - as I worked through finding refs and their population figures and putting all that on the page - that what I was asking for 1) was unreasonable in terms of the GA criteria and 2)the figure of 7000 militia at Braddock's Field is indeed possible. I just wanted someone to know I was claiming my wrongness. That's all. Shearonink (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, you can get the ping to send when added to a message—just need to resign the same post and add a new line czar 04:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• We write that the 7000 at B Field "proved to be the largest gathering of protesters" but the closest Slaughter gets is, "Never again would the rebellion meet such a fevered pitch; no more crowds of this size and temper assembled to combat their cosmopolitan foes" (p. 188). This would seem to me that it was a peak but not necessary "the largest"... Thoughts? czar 04:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I think something along the lines of perhaps stating it as [source] says this number and [source] says that number. Also, I remember other sources characterizing the massed militia at Braddock's Field as being some sort of high-water mark of the westerners' organized resistance to the whiskey tax.... whatever seems best, I think the goal here in terms of the GA criteria is to have sourced preciseness (as much as possible). Shearonink (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I think I'll just remove the superlative and we'll be okay. By the way, I verified both sources and they confirm the 7,000 count. Hogeland has a bit more on their origins (our paragraph mostly cites Slaughter) so I can add some of that. czar 22:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hogeland and Slaughter have different accounts here, so I'm resisting the urge to rewrite the section... The former, which is written as a popular history, talks about Bradford as a figure, coming out of nowhere and having immediate regret, calling for the Braddock gathering rather than for the meeting at Parkinson's, as Slaughter writes, with the "n" in Parkinson. In any event, I could add something about how the Bradford rallied the militias, which led to the large numbers despite his countermand, but in that case, there's a whole lot of other detail that I could add too. Let me know if you insist on adding more here or else I'll just mark it  Done czar 05:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Just mark it done - after all, this is a GA Review not a FA Review. Shearonink (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The content and reference is now contained in the article. Even I was surprised to read that (up to) 17,000 were settled in the region in the 1790s. It is not probable that any Pittsburghers participated unless there were some city merchants who benefited from trading. Even now, you won't find a lot of Pittsburghers attending the numerous local re-enactments of the rebellion...or the Washington, Westmoreland, Wayne or other county fairs in the region. Seems as if the city folks may not have been supportive of the rebellion although at this time, I am speculating. The routes traveled by those participating in the Whiskey rebellion can't be assumed to be the shortest route between the sites of the skirmishes and Pittsburgh. Those traveling to and from the confrontations would travel to each site from all directions - and not from Pittsburgh. A roadmap of the region will demonstrate that each little town, farm and hamlet were and are connected to each other. You can even see this on a quick look on google maps. There at least three ways you can take from point a to point b. If there were a skirmish in Washington County, those who lived within a few days travel would go there. No inns or accommodations were necessary. There was water everywhere. Unfortunately I am slipping into original research here, though I am only trying to establish some context. I am only going to stick to the content and source on a webpage of Western PA history. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this section of the review is resolved but to address the question of the townspeople's support, it's in the pages I mentioned from Slaughter/Hogeland. Going from memory, the rebellion hit a fever pitch at Braddock's Field, and the townspeople/moderates went along less for ideological agreement than for preemptive appeasement to protect their property from the mob. czar 18:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Great point. If you talk to some of the folks (history buffs) around here, they still seem a little worked up. Or else why would they perform in reinactments? Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 19:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Image choices

I am puzzled as to why an image of Gallatin - perhaps the amazing 1840s photograph below - isn't in the article (he's mentioned 7 times) when a painting of Henry Lee (mentioned three times) is. Shearonink (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

That is certainly an easy fix. Will do. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done

@Catlemur: Much thanks. I had to adjust the caption because Gallatin was not actually one of the tax resisters. Shearonink (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought it would be useful to depict how whiskey is made, for optional context in the early sections. I have this video (File:Making malt whisky- from barley to bottle.webm) but not sure whether it's a great fit. I'm pursuing one more from Mount Vernon, which would fit better for the period. czar 04:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Legacy section

This sentence: "Federalists attempted to restrict speech critical of the government with the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 but, after the Whiskey Rebellion, they no longer challenged the freedom of assembly and the right to petition, according to Boyd." could be more-carefully worded. The implied timeline is a little bit out of whack - I know what it is saying..that even though the Federalists came up with the Alien & Sedition Acts in 1798 (because, after all, they were kind of control-freaks), because of the lessons-learned by the central/Federal Government, those Acts didn't impinge on the right of freedom of assembly or the right to petition. If a casual reader, who didn't know much about the subject were reading that sentence, they might think the Alien & Sedition Acts were somehow passed during the Rebellion. Shearonink (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

{{working}}  Done Rephrased czar 20:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment

If you fix something up in response to any of my Review points, please ping me, maybe leave a note in the appropriate section so I know you've done some work on the article. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Talk:Whiskey Rebellion/GA1 Looking for some help... about whether or not this GA Nomination should be withdrawn. Shearonink (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Due to time restraints, I won't be able to participate in improving the article at this time. I am very optimistic in saying that though not a major contributor now, I will be able to improve this article to the point where it meets the standards for GA status. Fixing those problems pointed out to me seems quite 'do-able'. I've been doing some editing of Western PA history during the past 12 months or so and will be able to use those references that I've found to improve the article. I deeply appreciate the time you have put into this review. Your efforts have not been wasted and I will incorporate much of what you have highlighted into the article. I want to apologize for my lack of judgement in realizing that I did not correctly assess my time restraints at this time. I again want to thank you for your time - I do not take it for granted. You will be seeing my improvements during the next few months, but they will be slow in coming. The Very Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Hey. I volunteer to help finish the review to the best of my ability.--Catlemur (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. This might take a while - the article has some issues that need to be worked through. Oh, when you fix something please sign the "Done" - that helps me keep track. And thanks for the ping - those are also very helpful for me to keep track that some editing/fixing has been done. Shearonink (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm also willing to help. I'll read through in the next few days, or {{ping}} if I can be of immediate use czar 03:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Citation & verification needed templates

Much thanks to the editors who have added these maintenance templates. Just wanted to mention that the issues that they point out will need to be addressed before I can complete this GA Review (even if everything else is in tip-top shape). Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Czar, Catlemur, and Barbara (WVS): (and anyone else listening in...) This GA Review is On Hold until the 5 "verification needed/citation needed" referencing issues are addressed. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

That I cannot help with, as I do not possess the necessary sources.--Catlemur (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I am taking these referencing issues on since they are the one of last hurdles for the GA Review. Shearonink (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• One down - The unsourced WC Fields/psychedelic rock record has now been sourced. Shearonink (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Last issues - Citation needed and Verification needed maintenance templates

Yesterday I posted on user czar's talk page about these citation needed/verification needed maintenance templates and referencing issues.

"I looked into that one unsourced paragraph under "Western grievances", that starts with "The main objection to the whiskey tax..." This paragraph was added in one edit and is out of step with the rest of the article. I think it should be deleted, the subject matter is covered in referenced content elsewhere in the article, but in my opinion doing so would constitute a major edit and, so I cannot remove the content. Let's discuss etc. ..."

Since I am participating in the most recent GA Cup I am being very careful about any editing I do to any of the reviewed articles. This particular paragraph probably just needs to be deleted - it is completely unsourced. If anyone objects to its removal I would say that matter would need to be discussed on the article's talk page.

There were two remaining templates. One was in the lead section. In my opinion the reference there is redundant since the material is sourced and appears elsewhere in the main body of the article. I have therefore removed that citation. So the above paragraph is the last thing left to be dealt with. Shearonink (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

In my last readthrough I realized that the unsure paragraph had been removed - so that is Done. Shearonink (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.