Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hi-5 (Australian band)/archive2

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 May 2019 [1].

---

Hi-5 (Australian band)

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the Australian children's musical group Hi-5. The page reached Good Article status in 2016, and has since failed one Featured Article review. I have been working on improvements over the past three years.

With the review, I am willing to put in any amount of work to make the promotion possible. I will answer any questions and am happy to make the adjustments that you see fit. I am looking for constructive criticism so that the article can improve. I have kick started the process by fixing all of the dead links on the page. Please alert me if any more links fail to work.

Thank you for taking the time to check out this review. SatDis (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

In its prime, the group was one of the most popular musical acts in Australia, with several top 10 albums and a series of ARIA Awards. The group is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year, and would be the perfect time to jump on board for this review. Thanks in advance. SatDis (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Shaidar cuebiyar: I know you reviewed the page when it became a Good Article in 2016; if you are interested in helping out with the Feature Article review, it would be greatly appreciated! All good if not. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Casliber: @Dweller: Thank you both for looking at this article's previous Feature Article review in 2017; if there is any chance you'd like to take another look at the article now, I would be very thankful. No problems if you aren't interested. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Aircorn: Thanks for promoting the "sister article" of this, Hi-5 (Australian TV series) back in 2017. If you did have any spare time, it would be greatly appreciated if you could take a look at this article on the band as a whole. I would be thankful for any support! Regards. SatDis (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

Resolved comments

I would revise this sentence (Hi-5 are an Australian children's musical group formed in 1998, who are associated with the children's television series of the same name.) to (Hi-5 are an Australian children's musical group formed in 1998 in association with the children's television series of the same name.) because I think the current placement of the "who..." phrase is a little awkward. I would revise this part (The group is aimed at preschoolers, composed of five performers who entertain), as it literally reads that "preschoolers" are the ones that are "composed of five performers who entertain". I would revise this sentence (Hi-5 was created by Helena Harris and Posie Graeme-Evans, initially a television series for the Nine Network, which premiered in 1999.) to avoid passive voice. Maybe something like (Helena Harris and Posie Graeme-Evans created Hi-5 as a Nine Network television series, which premiered in 1999.). I am not entirely sure what this sentence (The cast of the show became a recognised musical group for children.) means. Could you explain it? It would seem rather obvious that any actors/performers on a children's show would be marketed toward children. Also, who is doing the recognizing here? I would revise this part (following de Leon Jones, who left on maternity leave in 2006.) to (when de Leon Jones went on maternity leave in 2006) to make it a little more concise and to avoid the repetition of "left" and "leave". For this part (The television series features puppet characters Chatterbox and Jup Jup, who are popular associates of the group and are included in the live stage shows), I am not sure if "are popular associates of the group and" is needed as it is already made clear in the beginning of the sentence that the puppets are associated with the group through the show. Maybe cut it down to "who are included in the group's live stage shows" instead. For this sentence (The members of Hi-5 are employees of the brand and do not hold equity), would it be helpful to include a wikilink for "equity" to the equity (finance) article. For this part (after the brand was sold by the Nine Network in 2012.), I would clarify who the brand was sold to if it is known. I have three comments for this sentence (In 2002, it was revealed that Crawford and Foley were in a personal relationship.). I would clarify in the prose how this was "revealed". I would also avoid using the word "revealed" as I have been told that it is too editorial/sensational. You could simply say that they said they were in this. I would also change "personal relationship" to "romantic relationship" as the current wording seems a little vague. Make sure to wikilink pop music on its first use in the article (i.e. , incorporating educational trends with a pop music appeal, using music and movement to capture the attention of children). I would simplify this part (Group members expressed just how demanding their role in the group had been) to (Groups members said their work was demanding) or something similar. For this part (In October 2015 Robinson stated she had tried to leave the group "after eight years" but was convinced by producers to stay.), there should be a comma after "2015". I see a few instances of this in the article so I would advise you to check through everything. Here are some more examples. ("In July 2006 de Leon Jones stated that she was intent on returning to Hi-5," and " In October 2015 Robinson stated she had tried to leave the group "after eight years" but was convinced by producers to stay"). This part (The pair departed in January 2013.) needs a citation. Great work with the article. I have only provided comments for the beginning portions, and I will complete the review later in the week if that is okay. I just wanted to put these comments up as a start and a placeholder for my future review. Apologies for the large amount of comments. Do not be discouraged, as the article looks in really good shape from what I am reading so far. Aoba47 (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Hi @Aoba47:, I'd like to thank you for taking on the review! Your feedback has been very helpful and I agree with all of the comments you've made. I'm not at all discouraged and looking forward to continuing the clean-up. I have managed to address all of your concerns. I am just looking for a citation for "The pair departed in January 2013" which there may not be any sources for. If there is no available source, I may just remove this line. Thank you for clarifying this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC) In response to "The cast of the show became a recognised musical group for children", this was just a sentence to show that the group's popularity transcended the TV show. They were recognised by charting albums and awards, rather than it just being a standalone TV show. Is there a better way to phrase this? I understand what you mean, but I did not get that from the current sentence. In the current sentence, I thought it mean that the cast was recognized as a musical group for children because of the show. I would try something like (The cast become popular for their work outside the show) or (The cast received recognition for their work outside the show). I also do not believe it is necessary to describe them as a musical group for children again, as I believe that point was already made clear in the previous parts of the lead. I could be wrong though so it is up to you. If you would like to keep the current wording, then we can see what other editors think. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Thanks again. SatDis (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Thank you for addressing everything. I will complete the review by the end of the week. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC) @Aoba47: Fixed that line. Thanks.SatDis (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC) For this part (The original Hi-5 line-up were together for eight series of the TV show.), say “television show” rather than “TV show”. I would make sure this is done throughout the article. For this part (In December News.com.au's Confidential reporter), there should be a comma after “December”. I would revise this sentence (Later in December, Park also announced she would be leaving the group, expressing she expected to only be a temporary replacement. ) to (Later in December, Park also announced she would be leaving the group since she had expected only to be a temporary replacement.). Something about “expressing” seems a little awkward to me. I am confused by this part (and in 2011 recognised the group's rich musical history by reintroducing classic songs to a new generation of fans). Who is doing the recognizing here? For this part (In June 2012 the Nine Network announced that), add a comma after “2012”. For this part (primarily based on Howard Gardner's Theory of multiple intelligences.), “theory” does not need to be capitalized. ARIA Albums Chart is linked twice in the body of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC) For Reference 97, “special announcement” should not be in all caps. For the Logie Awards table, I do not see why (Tied) is in italics. Also, do you think it would be appropriate to add a end-note/footnote on how Hi-5 tied with for this award? Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Nicholson's image caption should not have a period as it is not a full sentence. For this part (Hi-5 has a distinguishable pop music sound,), I do not believe "distinguishable" is necessary as it verges on some POV issues in my opinion. For this part (however he said that the respective groups have different "styles of music".), there should be a comma after "however". I believe it should be "Southeast Asia" rather than "South East Asia". I have never seen the "South" and "east" separated in this way before. Aoba47 (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Once the above comments are addressed, I will support the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Thanks @Aoba47: all of the comments have been addressed. Have changed "and in 2011 recognised the group's rich musical history by reintroducing classic songs to a new generation of fans" to "and in 2011 reintroduced a number of their classic songs to a new generation of fans." Thanks for bringing to light the correct phrasing of Southeast Asia - this hadn't been brought to my attention before. SatDis (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Many thanks for supporting the nomination. Are there any other suitable editors that you might be able to alert to the review? Thanks again. SatDis (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. You could try pinging the reviewers from the first FAC, but I am not sure. This FAC is still relatively new-ish, so hopefully, this will attract more attention in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments Tentative support from Cas Liber

Resolved comments

Thanks for pinging. Will take a look soon (and jot queries below): Overall looks better than previously, but is still sprinkled with some vague positive statements that hint of advertising. These need to be removed or rephrased. There are also alot of quotations that should be rewritten if possible. The cast received recognition for their work outside of the show. - umm...means what? Harris stated that her inspiration for Hi-5 came partly from living in England, where she realised that children are the same around the world, and expected the show would appeal universally, with accessible themes such as family and animals - this is verbose and could be radically trimmed, to something like, "Harris stated that her inspiration for Hi-5 came partly from living in England, where she realised she could develop a show with universal appeal, with accessible themes such as family and animals" narrowing down "about 300" people to only five - just say "around 300" and remove the quotation marks. Harris described the first time the group sang together as "goosebump stuff, even though they had never met". - err, which means what exactly? Harris stated that the energy of the group was fast-paced, replicating the style of a music video, which children seem to enjoy - "energy" is a puffy word with little meaning, I'd remove it. Greene stated "we’re really excited to be working with Nine to develop a reinvigorated Hi-5 show". - this sentence sounds puffy and adds nothing. I'd remove it. In October 2015, Robinson stated she had tried to leave the group "after eight years" but was convinced by producers to stay. - don't need quote marks here One of the unique features of the group is that the members are presented as older siblings to the children, educating the audience in a fun and entertaining way, through "play based learning", rather than appearing as adults who are teaching them - the source does not described it as a "unique feature" (which it isn't anyway). I'd chop that and leave "The members are presented as older siblings to the children, educating the audience through "play based learning", rather than appearing as adults who are teaching them" The educational aspects of the group's content are disguised with music and entertainment, with the multiple layers of the show catering to a wide range of ages in the audience, while being primarily aimed at those aged 2–8 - they are not disguised..otherwsie kids wouldn't learn. I'd say "blended" or "incorporated" I'll read more later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC) Thanks for taking a look. I'm happy to remove/rephrase as much as needed. For, The cast received recognition for their work outside of the show., I changed "work" to "music". Is there a better way for this sentence to show that their success transcended the TV show? Have changed "energy" line to "Harris modelled the group on the fast-paced nature of contemporary music videos, which children seem to enjoy." - not sure if this is better. Have removed "goose bump stuff" - language too casual. All other concerns addressed. SatDis (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC) Yeah, nature is better than energy. More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC) Looking for anything recent, this adds little but emphasises there are no actual members of the band right now, which I think needs to be mentioned in the lead. * Yep, I have referenced this in the article. In the lead, I've got "the group currently employs a roster of temporary performers for touring purposes" - no permanent members at the moment but there are still occassional performances. SatDis (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Right, I feel better now with the prose, though I am worried that others might find enough examples to complain about. Consider this a cautious support pending consensus (I find my eyes miss issues after a few reads). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. If you do find anything else feel free to let me know. SatDis (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dweller

Resolved comments
" The cast received recognition for their music outside of the show." what does that mean? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC) Have had a few comments about this one. It was meant to explain how their popularity and music transcended the TV show. But I have just removed the line to avoid confusion. SatDis (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks @Dweller: did you have any other comments? SatDis (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

Resolved comments

At this stage the review is only partial. I have not yet taken an overview of the quality and reliability of the sources, nor have I carried out any verification spotchecks. I need to scan the reflist further for possible formatting issues. Here are a few points that have come to my attention thus far: The "Notes" are lacking any citations Fixed. Ref 2: You have wikilinked The Daily Telegraph to the London paper, whereas the source is the Sydney paper. Fixed. The publisher of the Telegraph, given as News Limited, is now known as News Corp Australia (wikilinked in ref 34). This affects a number of references. You have it right in ref 101. Fixed. There needs to be consistency in adding publisher to the Telegraph references. The detail is missing in refs 54, 59, 81, 88, 89, 91 Fixed. Retrieval dates missing from refs 21, 22, 23 Fixed. Ref. 113: What makes Nick Jr. Parents a high-quality reliable source? It is mainly a blog style site used as the source of an interview. Those quotes can easily be removed if the site is not deemed appropriate. I intend to complete the review shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC) @Brianboulton: Thank you for your feedback, I have addressed the concerns above.SatDis (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Continuing... Verification: A sample of spotchecks for verification etc revealed one instance of close paraphrasing in Ref 32: Article: "By the end of 2005, Hi-5 had performed to a total audience of over one and a half million people around the world". Source: "By the end of the year, Hi- 5 will have performed to an audience of over one and a half million people around the world." Fixed, paraphrased. Quality and reliability: In general the sources seem to be at an appropriate level of quality and reliability. However, there are a few more sources that I'm not too sure about. Can you say how they qualify as high-quality reliable sources? Refs 18, 26, 82, 151: girl.co.au The website is a news site, as for ref 18, it's an important milestone in the group's history and the article reports it accurately, with no other sources available. The other refs are used for interview quotes, and to provide sources for important dates otherwise not available. Ref 29: Throng.co.nz. Reliable TV news site - information in ref otherwise not available. The source references the Sydney Confidential newspaper. Ref 76: Bugg Toys and Licensing. No other source with the important dates or quotes. There are not many available references for this children's group so it's sometimes a case of using everything that can be found. Ref 142: Mamamia.com This is an independent blog for the reception section - quotes from reviewers are needed for this section. Other points Ref 27 needs a page number as it is lacking a link Unfortunately there is no page number available. Ditto ref 108 There is a link for this source. Ref 78: Link not working for me Fixed. Ref 83: Clarify that this is a press release Fixed. Ref 95: Missing publisher details Fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you @Brianboulton:, addressed concerns.SatDis (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Support

Resolved comments

Hi, thanks for your input in Lorde FAC. I'd like to return the favor, and I'm really bad at giving reviews. Right now I have no major concern over the prose, but I need more time to read through the article several times, and may give my support then. Best of luck, HĐ (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC) No worries at all; it was challenging to find comments for the Lorde FAC as well. Thank you for visiting the page, any support at all is very much appreciated! SatDis (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Support I have re-read the article several times and feel that the prose is of FA quality. The article is very informative and meticulously sourced. — HĐ (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Many thanks @HĐ:, all the best for your article. SatDis (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose by Nick-D

Ongoing comments

This is an interesting article, but I have some serious concerns about sourcing and neutrality as well as significant concerns about the precision of the article's wording. I've read up to the Second generation" section and dipped into several other sections, but the sourcing problems are such I'm not going to continue: there are multiple cases of where sources clearly do not support the text. I don't mean for the following comments to come across as hostile (I'm a frequent FA nominator, so have a lot of skin in the game in keeping this forum positive), but rather to explain why I think that this article currently doesn't meet the FA criteria, including in comparison to recent FAs related to pop music. " This line-up had been completely phased out by the end of 2008, following de Leon Jones, who went on maternity leave in 2006" - this doesn't read well. I'd suggest referring to the lineup as "the original line-up", "phased out" is a bit odd, and the last bit seems bolted on. Changed. "and the group currently employs a roster of temporary performers " - the next para says that "the brand" is actually the employer, which is also confusing given that brands are concepts - I suspect that a company is the actual employer. "The brand has produced numerous television series" - is "the brand" a different thing from "the group"? This para is focused on "the group". Have tried to reword to address the two above points. "Hi-5 were one of Australia's highest paid entertainment entities" - not sure about the past tense without any qualifiers here. Could you clarify qualifier? Past tense is because they are no longer this successful; the sentence goes on to explain an earning amount/time period. "Foley stated that Hi-5 set a benchmark for a new style of non-traditional children's entertainment. " - this comment by one of the band's members doesn't seem suitable for anywhere in the article, and especially not the lead. It's obviously not an independent assessment of an act which has attracted mixed reviews. Removed line. "Hi-5 broke into the Southeast Asian market after the brand was sold by the Nine Network to Malaysian-based group Asiasons in 2012." - confusing given that the previous para notes international audiences and versions. The corporate structure behind the band could be explained in the lead though, which would help to clarify the issues I note above. Have removed the international audience line to help the para read better. Have reworded to try and clarify corporate structure. However, I could remove the "broke into" and just specify the brand's sale? "She and co-producer Posie Graeme-Evans (The Miraculous Mellops, Mirror, Mirror)" - what are The Miraculous Mellops and Mirror, Mirror? Other children's bands? Television series, but out of context I think, so removed. "incorporating educational trends " - it's not clear what an educational "trend" is in this context. Have reworked this paragraph The "background" section goes beyond background, and would benefit from a different title ("Formation" or similar perhaps?) Changed. The last para of the background section seems to partially duplicate the first two paras, and placing this after the discussion of the band's early activities in the third para is a bit confusing Have merged with the first paragraph. "Harris explained that Hi-5 " - explained to who isn't clear. This might work better as something like "Harris has stated that Hi-5..." Fixed. "She expected that the series would initially become formatted into international versions," - not sure about this wording (especially "formatted", which is usually something you do to a hard drive or memory card) I don't feel like this adds anything to the text, so deleted. "Hi-5 had initial success throughout the early years" - but the previous section says that their first album only reached 33 on the charts and the group spent their first year touring Sydney? What happened to push them to fame in 2000? True, removed and just stated the facts. "with the award-winning Hi-5 Alive show" - are these the awards noted in the previous para? If so, "award-winning" doesn't seem necessary here Yes, it is mentioned in the previous para. If one award does not qualify it, I will remove "award-winning". "New Zealand and Singapore were also frequent touring destinations" - the source (which is a press release about a tour to NZ, not a high quality source) doesn't mention Singapore at all. " a global audience exceeding one million people worldwide" - the source (which also looks to be a press release) puts the figure at "over one and a half million". Not sure this is a good source though. Removed both of the above; I know there are no better source. "Group members said their work was demanding..." - the source seems to be an interview with only a single member of the group, so may not support this statement. "Members also saw importance of portraying a positive image of themselves to the public in their personal lives, being "always on"" - passive voice, and as a result fairly wordy. It is also from an interview with a single person, so I question whether it's the view of "members". "However, the cast insisted that the stressful work was justified by seeing a smile on a child's face, and described the bond between the members as like family" - the sources quote one member as saying the job was justied by seeing children smile and another saying that the members were close, not "the cast" saying this. "insisted" is a bit odd - who was doubting this? More broadly, this is PR language - surely the band members did it because the pay was worthwhile and/or they enjoyed the work and/or thought it would be good for their careers. I agree with you on the three above points. I think for the validity of the article that it can all be removed. Merged paragraphs. What makes "Bugg Toys and Licensing" part of the "press"? The article looks to be a press release, with no author being credited. Replaced. "By 2015, Hi-5's ongoing success led to the group being described as an "institution"" - by whom? The source looks to be a single radio show as part of an interview with band members. I'd expect to see a strong source to express such a view. Removed. The "Reception" section's coverage of critics' views of the bands is rather brief, and not of the standard of other FAs on musical acts - rather than discussing the act's critical reception by theme (for instance, views of their songs, views of their live shows, etc), it jumps around. Have tried to organise (Positives / Awards / Tour Reviews / Negative comments). Unfortunately, these are the very minimal amount of sources that are available and it is unlikely to find anything more. "Hi-5, and the related television series, were designed by educational experts to appeal to contemporary, "media-literate" children by relating to their world" - none of this is supported by the source. Removed. "The brand dropped from a net worth of A$18million in 2009 to A$9.7million in 2010" - why this occured isn't explained (the article presents a very positive account of the act's history, when this suggests something went badly wrong) I have presented the facts of this net worth drop. In reality, the second line-up were not as successful as the first. But this is just speculation, and original research, so readers will have to infer. The article has way too many instances of members of this act and its management praising themselves or making empty statements, and these often appear where an independent assessment should be available. As a few examples: "Harris stated that by 2007, "Hi-5 [was] still evolving and maintaining its relevance and freshness"" - Harris is often quoted as a commentator on the band. Given that she was a producer/founder, she's obviously not a good source for statements like this. What do critics think? "Burgess said, "It's a new generation for a new generation. To be honest, it doesn't really matter who's up there in pigtails singing and dancing, kids just love Hi-5." - ditto. Were the new performers actually as popular? Removed. No, they were not. " Of his time with the group, he said, "I've had an incredible journey with Hi-5, one I will always cherish"" - PR stuff ""Of the film, Nicholson said, "I'm proud of how diligent we were about finding wholesome new talent, people with a great energy and who are genuinely lovely people" - what's the value of this? If a film was released, surely it attracted professional reviewers, etc. "Foley has praised the group's musical style on several occasions" - given that he was one of the musicians, this hardly seems surprising. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC) Removed these statements. Unfortunately children's media does not get enough attention. I would love to use more reliable sources, but there just isn't anything out there. Even for the film, the most professional reviews are parent blogs. Note - Thank you for the review @Nick-D:, it is appreciated. I will take your comments onboard and send a reply ASAP. SatDis (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC) @Nick-D:. I have adressed all of your comments (replied above), and I value the feedback. I would love to keep working with you to improve this article, if you are willing to. Thanks.SatDis (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• While it's good that my comments have been addressed, I remain very concerned about the referencing problems. Given that multiple spot checks were clearly failed, I'm afraid that I do not have confidence that this article meets the FA criteria at present. I note that your edits did not go beyond the specific scope of my comments, despite some of them (especially the over-use of quotes from people associated with the act) still frequently occurring. As some random extra comments:
  • "Harris observed that most children had a favourite cast member, believing that they generally "respond more favourably to the presenter who models the learning style they prefer"" - the source does not include this text at all, and the relevant pages do not include any quotes from Harris, and instead paraphrase her views.
  • "Hi-5 also has a large teenage and adult following, with the pop appeal of the music being one of the reasons leading to a group of dedicated older fans" - this surprising claim is from an unattributed and fairly spammy news story, with the claim being made by one of the band members. Much stronger sourcing seems necessary to support this claim.
  • The "Educational theory" section presents a very positive view of the show's educational values, but seems to be based only on the self-assessment of people involved. What do educational experts think? The article references a PhD which appeared to look into this topic, for instance.
  • "Hi-5 have enjoyed success throughout their history with international tours, charting music albums and awards. " - but the article seems to describe the act peaking during the 2000s, and now being worth less than their peak. The "Awards and nominations" section shows that it hasn't released an album in about 5 years and has won few awards in the last decade. It still seems to be a successful act, but this text suggests non-stop success. Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• @Nick-D:. If I were to open a peer review, would you be willing to make some occasional comments? I will not be offended if you decline. As the sole editor, it is difficult to move the article foreward without a second opinion, and I have appreciated your input. I will continue to take your comments on board. SatDis (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'd be happy to comment there. Please ping me when this is up and running. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

Support for promotion is quite weak right now and there has been little progress here in the last few weeks despite being on the Urgents list. It will have to be archived shortly unless there is significant movement. --Laser brain (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Just noting that there has been further support for the article since commenting and currently undergoing another editor's review. SatDis (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

This nom has been open well over two months now and given there are still issues I'm going to archive it so improvements can take place outside the FAC process. The nominator has done the right thing twice putting the article up for PR but both times, disappointingly, getting no feedback. I don't know if Nick has time to work with you preparing it for another attempt here but if not you could seek the involvement of another mentor. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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