# Talk:U Gambira

I saw this was nominated for good article review so I wanted to suggest that the lead be expanded to properly summarize the article. It is the most important part of the article and without a proper lead passing this as GA is not possible. Regards Hekerui (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I'll work on that this evening. Thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:U Gambira/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 04:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, another fascinating and high quality piece nominated by Khazar2 at GAN.  I just have a couple comments from my first reading of it for now, more to come. 

How about a background section? (Or work more background in elsewhere?) How about answers in the article to some of the following questions:
What was going on in Burma that led up to the protests?
What were the issues that motivated the uprisings?
Why monks as leaders of the demonstrations?
What was the deal with the political leadership? How long had they been in power?
What was their record with human rights violations and protests in the past?
What led to the Burmese constitutional referendum, 2008?  <edit> Sanctions? [1]
etc.  You know, backgroundy stuff.
Hmmm. I added a bit more, which should answer your basic questions above. But I'm concerned that starting to bring in sources unrelated to Gambira about Burma's human rights record is getting into SYNTH territory--what sort of information would you like to see there?. I don't believe that constitutional referendum is particularly related to the protests (Burma had had those pretty regularly all that decade as part of the military's supposed "road map to democracy"), though I could be wrong. What do you think? -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Isn't this a weird non sequitur? "In April 2008, Gambira's sister reported that he was leading a mettā chanting campaign among other imprisoned monks of Insein Prison to protest against their being issued "layperson" identification cards for the upcoming constitutional referendum.[7] He later stated that he had malaria for seven of his eight months in the prison."
I tried to tweak it, but there aren't many ways to segue from one of those facts to the other.
It's great now.  delldot ∇. 22:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Unclear: "In November, Gambira was sentenced to 68 years in prison, at least 12 years of which would be hard labor.[10] In early 2009, his sentence was reduced to 63 years."  Does this mean they got rid of the hard labor part?
Clarified. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
"During his imprisonment, Gambira won the Bindmans Law and Campaigning Award in absentia at the 2008 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards."  What is that?
Clarified. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Is Shin Gambira another name that should be mentioned in the lead? [2]
I believe Shin is an honorific rather than a name, but I've added an explanatory footnote. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Is this a non sequitur?  Or what's the connection or significance of the Obama attendance? "In November 2012, Gambira was seated in the front row for a speech about democratic reforms by visiting US President Barack Obama. Several weeks later, Gambira was again arrested and sent to Insein prison."
Well, there's a quiet irony to it that my source made much of: "Weeks after Obama's Burma visit, the monk who never had a prayer is back in jail. He had a front row seat to hear the President, but is back in jail after he continued to criticise the government." I added a second source saying the same. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the extra source would help the juxtaposition of the two sentences be less confusing for a first-time reader.  Outside of the irony, is there significance to his seating at the Obama talk?  Was he especially invited or an honored guest or something?  Was his attendance a kind of statement by the US?  (I'm not asking for it to be explained to me here, I'm just putting these as kind of rhetorical questions to show how it might be confusing in the article for a reader.)  delldot ∇. 05:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
My assumption is that he was an honored guest, put there by the US or Burma or both to accentuate the country's transition to democracy, since Gambira is one of the most recognizable faces of that movement. But can't say for sure. How would you suggest rewriting it? Considering that this juxtaposition made several headlines, it seems wrong to leave it out. -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Can we put anything more about what the sources actually said?  I still think this doesn't really work: "In November 2012, Gambira was seated in the front row for a speech about democratic reforms by visiting US President Barack Obama. A few weeks after the speech, authorities arrested Gambira again and sent him to Insein prison, a move called ironic by The Independent and The Washington Post."  Because the significance of his presence at the speech isn't explained, it's not clear what's ironic about the arrest.  If we can say the Post or Independent interpreted his presence there as being about democracy, it would clarify why they thought the arrest was ironic. Failing that, maybe a quote from the sources instead? delldot ∇. 22:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I made some changes, what do you think?  I think using the word irony might be synthesis, the Independent doesn't seem to come out and say that, just juxtaposes facts in a way the reader can infer as ironic.  Maybe this can be changed to "in a move which drew comment from" or "was criticized by" the news sources.  delldot ∇.
I feel like the "a move noted by" is a bit gratuitous, to be honest--we could write that after the end of every sentence in the article--and doesn't fulfill your stated goal of connecting the first sentence to the second to avoid what you felt was a confusing juxtaposition. I'm really not sure what to do about this one at this point. If we put them in without explicit commentary, as our sources did, you feel that it's too confusing a juxtaposition; on the other hand, any attempt to summarize the juxtaposition becomes synth. It might be easier to just delete this paragraph and call it a day. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
How about taking out 'noted by', leaving the two as refs, and having the next sentence be the US response?  "A few weeks after the speech, authorities arrested Gambira again and sent him to Insein prison.[4][35] The US Embassy released a statement on the arrest, saying, 'We're monitoring reports...'" delldot ∇. 04:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
So far looks good.  Are we dealing with another person like Odell Waller that just doesn't have that much written about him? I notice it's another short article which leaves a lot of questions about him unanswered. I will have to do some digging and see what I can find.  delldot ∇. 04:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think so, yes. He didn't have many opportunities for contact with media while he was in the spotlight, since he had to go on the run and then to jail so quickly. The biggest question I wish I could answer, and haven't been able to yet, was the nature of his leadership with the monks' alliance group. I think I picked over Highbeam and a few other databases, but it's been a while since I really worked on this--I should doublecheck; it's also possible something new might be up on Google Books since my first draft. I'll take a look in the morning--thanks for taking another of these reviews-- Khazar2 (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


### Info you could add
I'm looking around to see if there are sources that could be used to flesh this out a bit.  Here are some interesting facts I found that could be included unless you see a reason not to.  

"beatings, solitary confinement and sleep deprivation" in prison. [3]
I'm not opposed to including this, but it's hard to figure out where it should be put in the article without knowing when or where this happened--Gambira was shuttled between a few different prisons. I did find the solitary confinement in the HRW source, so I added that. I didn't have a lot of luck Googling for detail on the sleep deprivation part. As for the beatings, that's probably referring to the torture after he was arrested, mentioned in the article already.
Ok, makes sense.  Maybe a paragraph about mistreatment in custody would help with this difficulty as well as the concern about the non sequiturs above?  But it's fine, these are just random things I'm coming across, no need to include them if there's a good reason not to. delldot ∇. 04:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I tracked down the original of the interview this is referring to, which unfortunately isn't any more specific in chronology.[4] My assumption would be that Gambira is just referring to the same torture that Human Rights Watch is reporting on. I'll add something about it to that paragraph, though.
Visit from UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights [5]
Added.
treason charge? [6] (I can't get the full text but I will try a couple more things to get it).
I've added detail on the exact charges from the AAPP, though even they don't appear to know all sixteen, or what the sentence was for each individually. (The results of these trials were learned by organizations third-hand, since the govt. doesn't announce them.) Several of these charges could be interpreted as "treason". I went ahead and added the full list.
I think a description of what the crimes he was charged with were in layperson's terms would be better, since no one's going to know what the specific laws are (e.g. "Emergency Provision Act") or what's in them (i.e. what he was accused of).  I don't think it needs to be exhaustive.  Just something like "...he was charged with violations of laws about rioting, unlawful assembly, insulting religious beliefs, and making illegal statements and publications..." or whatever the accusations actually mean.  If we can't find info on what the accusations or laws actually say, no need to include them all.  Just as many as we can understand plainly.  delldot ∇. 04:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, removed the AAPP description. Unfortunately, I don't really know what these translate to in layperson's terms. Most newspapers settle for "he was jailed for participating in the protests". Let me check Amnesty International's backfiles. Sometimes they are a little more specific in writing urgent actions, but the problem is Gambira was tried with so many other protesters that they often got lumped together in appeals. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't look like there are any AI appeals that were more specific about the charges, either, unfortunately. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Found a bit more via DVB, expanded this slightly and combined with the AAPP source. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
It looks like there's the potential for expansion, but admittedly I still haven't done much research.  I look forward to discussing and working on this.  delldot ∇. 05:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone over Google Books and Highbeam again, and didn't see anything else. While there are probably some additional facts that can be wrung out of Google here or there with another few days' work, I'm confident the article covers at least the "main aspects" required by the criteria ("This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics."). I'm still happy to include anything additional you turn up, though--I really appreciate having another researcher looking at this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, well, hopefully we can come to a consensus between us as we continue to research.  I apologize if I'm being too much of a hardass, I'm not trying to stress you out or put unreasonable demands on you, but I'd rather err on the side of having higher quality coverage since there's room for interpretation in that criterion.  I'm not going to be unwilling to listen to reason though, I'm sure we'll see eye to eye soon enough as I do more reading up. delldot ∇. 04:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good, and you're not being a hardass; I appreciate the help finding additional sources. I only meant to suggest I had come to the limit of what my own sources and databases appeared to have--or at least to the point where no new "main aspects" appeared likely to turn up. (Perhaps diminishing returns is a better way to put it.) Glad to put in anything you find, or go hunting for anything specific that seems to be missing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


### More thoughts
I like the footnote about the names.  Is the hatnote at the top of the article the normal way to do that?  Or should it be incorporated into that note as well?  ("In this Burmese name, U is an honorific")
My understanding is that that's standard for our articles on Burmese names. I think it's one of those Wikipedia things where there's a guidelines page for this somewhere that was drawn up a few years back by 2-3 editors who are no longer active, but it at least gives some standardization.
Oh, right on, well let's stick with the obscure guideline then. delldot ∇. 16:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I think in the lead and the last section, at the end of each, there should be a sentence about what his current status is (As of January 2013...), which will of course have to be updated as his situation changes.  e.g. As of January 2013, he has been in such-and-such prison for four months and his family has not been able to talk to him/says he is in poor health/etc.
Yes, good idea. I haven't checked for the latest updates since nomming this one two months back. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, added the release on bail. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Well at least it meets the stability criterion!  Might be worth doing a check to see if there are any other new sources or pieces of info that could be added.  delldot ∇. 04:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Google News is pretty empty,[7] just a few passing references to his general story and one generic quote from him about how he wants democracy in a broader story on Burma. DVB, who specialize in this sort of news, has no new stories on him since his release on bail.[8] -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for checking. delldot ∇. 05:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I get the impression that being "stripped of his robes" was a big deal, but it's not clear what the cultural or religious meaning of it was, as intended by the authorities or as understood by him.  Would it be possible to clarify that?
Added wl and efn that clears it up. Monks have high status in Burmese society, so making someone less visibly a monk would be equivalent of stripping their status a bit. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Excellent.  You don't think the status thing should be even more clear in the footnote, the way you just explained it here?  Or can the reader infer that?  (I think the monks having status thing would also be clearer for the part where they were issued non-monk cards).
So the "stripping" doesn't have to do with literal nudity and that kind of humiliation?  Maybe we could use another word than "stripped" then?  Like they took away his robes, or deprived him of them.  Or is "stripped" the standard way to say that?  delldot ∇. 03:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I can't be 100% sure on that part; HRW doesn't elaborate. My guess would be that they simply made him dress as other prisoners. I'll elaborate a little more in that footnote. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
More to follow soon. delldot ∇. 22:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This is totally outside of the GA question because it's just a personal opinion, but do you think this image would be better because it shows monks and you can see there are lots of people, and it's kind of a nicer image than the march one?
I agree, thanks for the find! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
There's this quote from this source: "'They released me yesterday on bail of $4,700. We have not got a clear picture of my case yet',[9] but it's an Australian news source, so I'm not sure if the $ is US dollars.  Was this news from December 11 2012 the last update we have about his case? delldot ∇. 22:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Edit: This clears it up: "Nyi Nyi Lwin’s brother Aung Kyaw Kyaw said the former monk was released after posting bail at 4 million Kyat (US$ 4,686)."[10] <-- maybe not the greatest source thoug
DVB should be good enough for our purposes; they're pretty reliable. I'll update this one later tonight, hopefully. Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Come to think of it, DVB is another source where I should just do a site search for Gambira's name; they might have a few more details that can be added in, besides the latest update. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Added the bail for the latest charge. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I just wasn't sure if the source was sort of just a mouthpiece for an advocacy group, or was maybe too biased to be reliable.  Here's another source if you prefer. That uses a slightly different figure, $4600.  I guess we don't need to translate into dollars though, we can just the 4 million kyat figure, since it's not necessarily an American audience.  delldot ∇. 03:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)  Duh, sorry, I hadn't actually read what you had written when I wrote this. delldot ∇. 03:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
DVB's pretty reliable, at least at the same level with the Irrawaddy. Both are run by opposition journalists from exile, or at least they were before the recent reforms; I'm not sure what's happening lately. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Since Amnesty and other human rights groups are advocacy groups and not news sources per se, it's probably better to use other sources when they're available.  (I think they're widely respected and legit enough to meet WP:V though).  e.g. the 68 years thing is in every article I read about him, so maybe we can use a better source for that fact.  delldot ∇. 04:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Added additional source to verify the length of sentence. The other sentences sourced to Amnesty appear to be attributed in-text, save for the minor " On one occasion, Gambira refused to appear in court himself, stating that the trial of a forcibly disrobed monk was disrespectful to Buddhism". -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Great.  delldot ∇. 16:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


### Image idea
I noticed this site has an image of Gambira in street clothes, which might be interesting to illustrate the section that mentioned that he had to quit being a monk.  The site says that it can be used in whole or part with attribution, but doesn't make super clear about modification, so I asked on IRC and folks said to send them an email just to make sure it's their image and alteration is allowed.  But do you think it's worth it?  The image is kind of grainy.  I can email them if you like, what do you think?  delldot ∇. 04:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be awesome to have in the article--a visual emphasis that he's no longer a monk, since his de-monking has been such a point of coverage. But as to whether it's worth it, that's up to you. I feel like I always end up in long and inconclusive conversations when I send out image requests, and swear each time that I'll never do it again. But you, like most people, may be more patient than me. =) Your call! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure, can't hurt to try, I feel like they will probably be cool with it.  delldot ∇. 04:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Bah, the email bounced.  Oh well.  delldot ∇. 05:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks like we got a "street clothes" image all the same. [11] Lucky break! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


### Sorry, delayed
So far all your responses look good.  Sorry for the delays, my Internet connection's been spotty, it keeps crapping out.  And I'm really busy for the next few days.  I just have to give it another read-through.  delldot ∇. 23:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've got a killer sinus infection myself, so won't be doing any serious editing for the next few days. Take your time! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


### More comments
Not knowing anything about Burma's history, this sentence isn't clear to me: "...the military government which had ruled the country since suppressing a previous uprising in 1988."  So there was a different government, an uprising in 88, the military replaced it, and became the new government?  Perhaps we could take a sentence to expand on this history.
There was a previous military govt (SLORC) headed by General Ne Win that agreed to arrange new elections in 1988 after a few decades of rule; Ne Win's government was then overthrown by an internal coup, and the new group called itself the SPDC. The elections went forward in 1990, I think, with Aung San Suu Kyi winning 70-80% of the vote. But the new military govt, now calling itself the SPDC, refused to honor the results and stayed in power anyway. I've tweaked this to make it clear that this is referring to the same event wikilinked above, but of course readers can also click SPDC if they're interested in that group's history. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that we should summarize in the article so folks don't have to leave it to understand what they're reading.  Sure, if they want way more depth, they can go to a different article, but it's good to give them enough in the article itself to follow along.  Of course that's a judgement call how much is too much or not enough. But I think the level of detail you just gave here would be good for the article.  delldot ∇. 18:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm just going to have to disagree on this one. A search of highbeam for SLORC + Gambira turns up no results. A search of the Google News archives turns up a single Mizzima article that mentions Gambira in a list of other monks.[12] Surely if the hundreds of articles on Gambira haven't needed to give context on the military junta that preceded the current junta, it's excessive for us to do so. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
This sounds weird to me: "the government at first appeared reluctant to repress their demonstrations."  Reluctant to repress?  Also, is repress a NPOV word?  It would be better to state exactly what they were reluctant to do but of course you're limited by the info available.
Reliable sources like the NYT pretty regularly use repress to refer to the government's forceful responses to demonstrations.[13] I'm fine with other language if you have suggestions, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I feel like their NPOV requirements might be different from ours in some ways.  Like the Independent article would definitely fail NPOV by our standards for being too sympathetic to Gambira.  Maybe "suppress" would be more factual?  Of course, the best option, like I said, would be to say specifically what they were reluctant to do.  delldot ∇. 18:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
changed to suppress. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the paragraph in the AAPP source beginning "In 2005, whilst attending Dhammasariya (training to become a teacher of Buddhist scriptures) classes, he became acutely aware of people’s struggle for their livelihood..." is really interesting and has useful background for how he became involved.  But I'm not convinced of how reliable that source is, so maybe we should limit using it.  Let's keep an eye out for other sources with this info though.
I'll keep an eye out. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
here's more about background, from the Independent: "'This revolution started by the monks had been planned since 2003 or 2004 and it became a reality in 2007. Many monks died and others were sent to prison but we started a revolution that had a lot of impact. It was a milestone in history.'"[14]
Will add. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if honorary Italian citizenship is relevant, but I thought it was interesting.  Also I don't know if this source is reliable (looked ok on first glance) but I saw it mentioned in a couple places.
Mizzima seems to be exaggerating in their headline; per the article, Gambira was awarded honorary citizenship by the small town of Mobergno, Italy, not Italy itself. If you'd still like me to add it, though, I will. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Eh, whatever you think is best.  delldot ∇. 18:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I also noticed that his brothers were doing time too, would that be relevant to put in if a good source could be found?
Definitely a good thing to mention, espec. as they were apparently jailed for helping him. Added. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Should these two sentences be moved into the imprisonment section? "Human Rights Watch reported that Gambira was stripped of his robes[b] and "badly tortured" following his arrest.[5] Gambira stated after his release that authorities had beaten him and deprived him of sleep during his imprisonment."
Moved. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Looking good, more to come! delldot ∇. 23:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Independent article has a good, quick summary of what caused the protests (sudden spike in fuel and food prices).  That's the kind of background info I was hoping to add.  Just a sentence or two.
The article already says that " high fuel and commodity prices in Yangon sparked a series of city-wide protests"--do you think that's enough? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that more context would be good, just a couple sentences so people with no background can get an idea of what was going on.  I also think that the price spike having been sudden and the result of a government decision is relevant to understanding why and how the protests came about as they did.  delldot ∇. 18:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, added an additional sentence about the cutting of the subsidy causing the spike in prices. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be good to make it clearer that he was arrested for breaking into monasteries that the government had closed in response to the saffron revolution.  The current wording is so detailed, it's a little hard to follow on a first read-through: "Authorities announced that he was undergoing investigation for illegally squatting at the Maggin Monastery in Yangon's Thingangyun Township without officially registering with the Ministry of Religious Affairs after his release, and for breaking and entering the Sasana Theikpan and Sasana Gonyi Monasteries in Bahan Township."  Maybe a sentence before this could give a little intro: The government closed the monasteries after the protests, Gambira opened them back up and was arrested for it.  Then the specific names could be mentioned as we have currently.
Good idea, clarified. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Here's a little more about the specific charges: "Aung Kyaw Kyaw had said earlier that Gambira was being held for “house trespassing, “damaging the dignity of the nation,” and “house-breaking” after he removed the locks from several monasteries in February."[15]]
Hmmm... I think I'd rather leave this out for now, if that's okay. This is his brother speaking the day of the arrest; this may be a rare case where the Burmese official news agency (the other source quoted) may be a more reliable source. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Heh!  Ok.  delldot ∇. 18:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The released on bail thing is good for the last sentence of the lead and article.  I tried to find info about what his current legal status is, I assume he's still facing charges?  I don't suppose we know when his next court date is?  (some of the articles mentioned a date in December, but I haven't found anything on what's next for him).  I just think it would be tidy to finish up the article with "released on bail, still facing charges" type conclusion.
It would be typical of the Burmese govt. approach to leave the charges hanging. Now if they need to, he can be yanked back into court at any time, and it creates pressure on him to behave. But I can't seem to find anything more recent than the bail article to clarify. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, we'll just have to work with what we have.  delldot ∇. 18:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
This looks like a massive list but most of these are minor.  Feel better fast, take your time with these.  delldot ∇. 00:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've responded to all of the above now. Let me know if there are any where you think further action is required. Thanks for looking all this over! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


### Tapping out
Sorry I've been slow to respond the past few days; I've having some health problems IRL limiting my Wikipedia editing.  I think I've addressed most or all of the above, but this review's been going on for a while, and I probably just need to tap out and call mercy on this one. If the article doesn't meet the criteria and needs to fail, so be it. I did add the award you wanted from that Italian town as a peace offering, though. =) Thanks as always for your contributions in research and reviewing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been busy IRL too, so I'm sorry if I've been slow to respond lately.  I do think it's really close, I was planning to give it another read through and expecting it to be my last.  I don't have time to do that tonight though.  I'd feel really bad failing it though, since it's super close and you've put a mountain of work into it just during this review.  Maybe when I read it again I will find a way to fix the problems I still see myself.  Sorry, I didn't realize this was getting you down, I will try to finish it up quickly.  delldot ∇. 04:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
No worries; if I sound cranky, it's entirely due to my health issues. I'm probably doing a brief hospital stay this week so I'm not sure how much I'll be on, but if there's only a few things left I can at least try to take a look at them on the other side. Since I'm not sure how much I'll be around either, please do feel free to take your time, and thanks again for taking the time to review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Right on, yeah, it's really not much if anything left.  I think the two concerns I still had were just about the background info and the Obama speech thing: I like the addition of the info about the sudden change in prices for the former, and I had a suggestion about the latter (which is actually really minor anyway). I will finish reading this in the next couple days if I can but that is cool that you are taking your time so I can too.  delldot ∇. 04:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I decided to be bold and implement my suggestion above about removing the inline mentions of The Independent and the Post, but I'm not saying that's the way it has to be, feel free to change it if you want to.  It's actually a minor thing. I think everything else I brought up above has been addressed.  I'm sorry if I've come off as being authoritarian about this article, or made this process feel like a fight.  I should have paid more attention to how my remarks would be interpreted but fwiw I didn't mean to make it confrontational.  Anyway, thanks for all the hard work on it, I think it's definitely ready for this now:  Congratulations.  delldot ∇. 20:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)