Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz

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.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Catrìona (talk)

Featured article candidates/Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz/archive1

This event, described as "one of the most bizarre escapes" of World War II, involved an SS guard who risked (and ultimately lost) his life to help an Auschwitz prisoner escape. The escapee then insisted on breaking into a different concentration camp. The article has recently benefitted from a thorough GA review by Gog the Mild.

The literature is somewhat sparse, but my search was very thorough. Recently I went through both Google Scholar and Google Books with both spellings of Lederer's name and found nothing new with substantive coverage. The only scholarly source that I am aware of offering substantive coverage that I haven't referenced here is a four page report by Alena Vlčková in Štěnovice a osobnosti. A bigger problem is that many authors have not applied a rigorous investigative approach to this subject, even the ones that really should really know better. Catrìona (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ by Sturmvogel_66

Do we know exactly which Waffen-SS unit Pestek was in?

Unfortunately, the unit name/designation is not to be found in any of the sources.

Pity. Is there any info on when he enlisted? Or if he was a Party member?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of the sources give dates. (OR alert) He must have joined the SS after April 1941, because the SS did not accept recruits under 17. Given what we know about him I find it highly unlikely that he was a party member, but there's no information on that either. Catrìona (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was forgetting how young he was. I was just kinda curious because there weren't many Waffen-SS units on anti-partisan ops during Barbarossa in that area. My best guess would be the SS Cavalry Brigade or the 1st SS Infantry Brigade, but that's entirely speculation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explain what BII-d is

Clarified "BIId section". I also added an aerial photograph/map.

I can't see anything else worth commenting on, but I'll make another pass later before I support. Very nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Link to concentration camp in the lede. And fire brigade, kapo

All linked

It's not immediately clear what "deported on the next transport" really means. The following bit about the murder of his family does show that it means something really bad, but I think that the current phrasing is very euphemistic.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does come off as euphemistic, but that is how it usually described in most of the sources. The authors expect the reader to know that "less than half a percent [of those deported in 1942] survived the war." (as is stated in one of the footnotes of this article). One can't write "deported on the next transport to a death camp" because it's not strictly accurate. Many of the transports in 1942 went to ghettos, although almost all the victims ended up dead either way.

Fair enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support by PM

This is a really interesting episode, thanks for putting it together.

Thank you for reviewing it.

link antisemitism in the lead

Linked Soviet anti-Zionism

I had the same query as Sturm regarding what Waffen-SS unit he was in, but if it isn't in the sources there is little that can be done.
who is Langbein? I mean this in the sense that you should introduce him. You should also link him because he is notable. You could split this sentence and make the second sentence about what Langbein said. Along the lines of "...adventure.[3] According to the writer and Auschwitz concentration camp survivor survivor Hermann Langbein, Pestek's mother persuaded him to join the Waffen-SS."

Done

suggest "During his service, Pestek was involved in anti-..."

Done

link Lederer at first mention

Done

state that Lederer was a Jew, this isn't explicitly stated from the outset in his section

Done

link Lieutenant Colonel

Done

is Weidmann likely to be notable?

If so, there is no indication in the Karny paper, which just has a passing mention.

suggest "Zbraslav gendarmerie" and link gendarmerie

Done

so, was Lederer not arrested for being a Jew, but for resistance activities? This becomes clearer later, but perhaps it should be explicitly stated that the Gestapo picked him up for his political activities, if sources are clear on this?

Done

what family did Lederer have?

Zdražilová mentions a father and sisters

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Cierer and his family" who is this? They should be introduced when first mentioned. Is it necessary to intro them at this point, or should this be later?

clarified

link Kapo (concentration camp)

Already linked (blockältester redirects to that article)

suggest "Leichenkommando, which was responsible for the disposal of corpses."

done

suggest "When interrogated later, Cierer..."

done

suggest "Other sources state that it was Lederer..."

done

suggest "because he was ~~wanted~~detained"

done

suggest "They planned to escape with Lederer disguised as an SS man. They planned to return to the camp as SS officers, and then present a forged Gestapo warrant for the arrest of Renée Neumann and her mother in order to effect their rescue." or similar

rewrote

suggest "he obtained an official Gestapo form for the forging of the arrest warrant." If that is what is being referred to? Or is this the request for the vehicle and driver?

done

suggest "and Lederer bicycled out of the gate after Pestek." if that is what is meant?

changed to "both men bicycled out of the gate". The source doesn't say who was first.

link Prague

done

is Birkenau shorthand for Auschwitz II-Birkenau? With no link, this might be confusing for the casual reader, so I suggest using the full name of the camp

done

it is unclear what Pestek had to do to modify his uniform, as he was already in the Waffen-SS?

This is what it says in the source. I'm guessing that, when serving in concentration camps, Waffen-SS men wore the death's head tabs on their uniforms.

suggest "to arrest ~~the two women~~Renée Neumann and her mother."

done

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through it a few times to try to make sense of it, the set-up of the Return and Aftermath sub/sections threw me. Surely the article should be in chronological order with Lederer's activities in the Protectorate before returning to Auschwitz preceding the Return? From my reading of it, it appears he broke into Theresienstadt concentration camp several times to try to warn the inmates before he went back with Pestek? Is that right? I'm going to review these in order, but I suggest re-arranging the narrative to flow chronologically, with his activities in the Protectorate, then the Return, then his activities after.

I've changed the structure here although I'm of two minds about it, since it requires making a determination of the unclear chronology. Only the first visit to Theresienstadt was definitely before the return to Auschwitz.

suggest "Pestek and Lederer returned to Auschwitz, probably in late May,[p]"

I think the jury is still out on this one, since the highest quality source available, Karny, only gives a range and discusses conflicting testimony. It's unclear where Levine, Langbein etc. are getting the exact date from. Also, if it was in late May, it's unclear where Pestek was hiding in the meantime.

kapos is italicised here but not earlier, be consistent

Fixed

when we get to "the nearby town of Travčice", it isn't clear we are back in the Protectorate, and nearby to what city/town?

Near Theresienstadt

"how to sneak past the sentries" of what facility? Is this Theresienstadt concentration camp? But then there is a reference to a ghetto? Which ghetto is this? Theresienstadt Ghetto?

"Theresienstadt concentration camp" can refer either to the detention facility for Jews or a nearby Gestapo prison (the Small Fortress) or both. Some sources describe the Jewish location as a "camp-ghetto" but recent opinion puts it more into the ghetto category. Anyway, for clarity I've changed all references to Theresienstadt to "ghetto" where appropriate.

was the report to Holzer a verbal or written one?

Presumably verbal, but not specified. Changed the wording so it doesn't suggest a written report.

Mischling is used in Note [t] but not explained or linked

Linked

Czechia?

Changed to the Protectorate

I don't follow "he fled to Slovakia, where he joined the Kriváň partisan group and tried to cross the border to fight in the Slovak National Uprising (August–September 1944), and was wounded in the attempt" Should the Slovak Republic be linked here? If he joined a partisan group in the Slovak Republic, why would he need to cross a border to engage in the uprising?

Clarified this

first it talks about a partisan group named after S. P. Vezděněv, then immediately discusses his role in the Plzeňák 28 group. Are these one and the same? If not, I don't see the connection here.

Lederer said he was involved in both groups, but there is only documentary evidence for his membership in the latter group. I've tweaked the text to be more clear.

suggest "Lederer remained in the Slovak Republic and then Czechoslovakia..." if that is what is meant

No, he went back to the Protectorate after the uprising.

now we learn that Lederer was previously married. What happened to his first wife?

I had assumed that he was previously married, but I can't find a definitive reference. I've changed this to "married."

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler likely to be notable? If so, redlink.

They are bluelinked in the "Auschwitz" section.

who is/was Eduard Kotora?

He is introduced in the Switzerland section, but I've clarified his role in the postwar period.

That's me done. Just a couple of additional points to address. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was thrown by the reorganisation of the chronology. This is a great article, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:BIIb_block_Birkenau_aerial_photograph.png should include a source and copyright tag for the underlying image

Done (PD-ineligible, made by a mechanical process)

Looks like the source file has a different tag - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it's wrong on the source file, so I changed it. The original uploader specified PD-ineligible. Catrìona (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Birkenau_a_group_of_Jews_walking_towards_the_gas_chambers_and_crematoria.jpg: source link is dead, when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Per the USHMM record, now linked, the photograph was first published with the rest of the Auschwitz Album in the United States in a 1980 book. Courtesy ping @Nikkimaria: Thanks! Catrìona (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The EU-anon tag has copyright persist "70 years after the work was made available to the public" - if that didn't happen until 1980 then the tag would have this still copyrighted in the EU. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I've removed the tag. The Auschwitz Album is still non-controversially PD, per Yad Vashem, the USHMM, and deletion discussions on Commons. Catrìona (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, which deletion discussions? I don't see one for this image... Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: The Auschwitz Album photographs were taken together and published at the same time, so the same copyright status should apply to all of them. See this DR for another one of the images which was dismissed as a "Non sense request" by Yann. Catrìona (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pendright

Be aware that this article was already copyedited by Baffle gab1978. I think the syntax is pretty good, and while I welcome improvements please be aware of Wikipedia:Basic copyediting#Things that do not need to be fixed. I think that your extremely prescriptive version of grammar doesn't necessarily improve the article. Catrìona (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware - I reviewed the article’s talk page before offering my comments and it tells a different story. In your post to the editor referenced, you said, "thanks for agreeing to review the article". In response, the editor said, "I am far from an expert on A-class, but I shall make what suggestions I can." This seems to refute the notion that a suitable copyedit was actually made. In any case, a formal copyedit would certainly benefit the article, if made by an independent and experienced copyeditor.
As for the syntax comment, most people acknowledge that they are not always the best judges of their own work. That's why articles are copyedited and reviewed, especially at the A-class level.
In your last comment you said, "I think that your extremely prescriptive version of grammar doesn't necessarily improve the article." You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. It's not my version, it's an accepted rule of grammar, and it is hardly prescriptive. The MOS recognizes parenthetical material under Commas and Appositives. The MOS also says Wikipedians are encouraged to familiarize themselves with modern editions of other guides to style and usage, which may cover details not included in the MOS. Those that have most influenced the Wikipedia Manual of Style are the Chicago Manual of Style (University of Chicago Press), my favorite, as well as many other editions.
I don’t know what prmpted your comments, perhaps it was my remark about parenthetical material, or maybe it was just the fact I questioned your work. What I do know, though, is you probably didn’t do too well on the basic Wikipedia etiquette level, which stresses be polite, assume good faith, and avoid personal attacks. Pendright (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: I think you might be confused. The article received a GA review from Gog the Mild, which is on the talk page. I think this might be what you are referring to? After passing this review, I submitted a copy edit request to the Guild of Copy Editors. This request was answered by Baffle gab who made a series of copy edits to the article. Incidentally, Baffle gab is in the GOCE hall of fame. I intended no personal attack in my remarks but I was concerned that some of your suggestions did not actually improve the article. Catrìona (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Catrìona: If it is what you say about the copyedit, I stand corrected.
You said, “I was concerned that some of your suggestions did not actually improve the article.” I assume it’s the parenthetical material comment. As for your response, it’s still an opinion, not a rational discussion of the rule of grammar covering the situation, which you would afford any other reviewer. In any case, I’ve had my say and I have no ill feelings, whatsoever, but I do hope you’ll brush up on parenthetical usage. Pendright (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

On the night of 5 April 1944, Siegfried Lederer, a Czech Jew who was imprisoned at the Nazi concentration camp at Auschwitz, escaped wearing an SS uniform provided by SS-Rottenführer Viktor Pestek.

, a Czech Jew who was imprisoned at the Nazi concentration camp at Auschwitz, - This phrase is punctuated as a parenthetical element, which is a word or group of words that interrupts the flow of a sentence and adds additional (but nonessential) information to that sentence. Commas are generally used to set off the element in a sentence. It is a part of the sentence that can be removed without changing the essential meaning of the sentence. However, this phrase is an essential part of the sentence: suggest changes to reflect this.

Not done Per WP:LEDE, the lede only contains the most important information. Does that mean that parentheticals should never be used in the lede?

@Catrìona: Context: The issue is still the same, which is, treating essential information as nonessential information. While the MOS is Wikipedia's in-house style guide, it is not the last word in usage and style guides. Under further reading, the MOS speaks to external style guides in this way:

Wikipedians are encouraged to familiarize themselves with modern editions of other guides to style and usage, which may cover details not included here. Those that have most influenced the Wikipedia Manual of Style are:

The Chicago Manual of Style
Oxford Guide to Style
Scientific Style and Format
Garner's Modern English Usage
Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage
The Elements of Style

The Chicago Manual of Style has been in print since 1906, and has this to say about essential and nonessential information:

A phrase that is restrictive, that is, essential to the meaning of the noun it belongs to, should not be set off by commas. A nonrestrictive phrase, however, should be enclosed in commas.
A relative clause that is restrictive-that is, essential to the meaning of the sentence-is neither preceded nor followed by a comma. But a nonrestrictive clause that could be omitted without essential loss of meaning (nonrestrictive clause) should be preceded an (if the sentence continues) followed by a comma.
A word, abbreviation, phrase, that is a appositive to a noun is set off by commas if it is nonrestrictive-that is, omiitable, containing supplemental rather than essential information. If it is restrictive-essential to the noun it belongs to-no commas should appear.

The act of Setting off the phrase by commas made the phrase supplemental or omittable information. Grammatically, such information can be or is excluded when reading the sentence. Pendright (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He accompanied Lederer out of the camp and the two men traveled together to the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia to obtain false documents for Neumann and her mother.

(a) Did anything notable happen in therir travels to obtain false documents?

I stand corrected - Pendright (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(b) Quite a long sentence, consider breaking it up with a comma.

Added a comma.

Lederer, a former Czechoslovak Army officer and member of the Czech resistance, unsuccessfully

, a former Czechoslovak Army officer and member of the Czech resistance, - Again, this phrase is essential to the sentence.

After the war he remained in Czechoslovakia and remarried, but he faced antisemitic persecution from the Soviets.

After the war is a introductory pharse and is usually followed by a comma.

Not done I think it reads fine as it is.

A few years ago I asked my English teacher about commas and introductory phrases and he said that they weren't required, although he felt longer ones needed commas. So a style thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Pestek

Pestek, whose father was a blacksmith and a small farmer, learned these trades as a young man but joined the Waffen-SS because of his innate sense of adventure.

, whose father was a blacksmith and a small farmer,

(a) Again, this phrase is essential to the sentence.

(b) Consider a comma after man

Done

In progress - Pendright (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

Who is Siegfried Lederer? You should introduce him to the reader in two or three words on first mention, especially since he doesn't have an article in English

Fixed this issue by putting the Lederer section first

You use quite a few explanatory footnotes; consider whether all of them are really necessary—could some be removed or incorporated into the prose?

I've cut it down to nine notes.

Consider grouping references at the ends of paragraphs

I try to keep references close to the text that they support to increase verifiability

The Nazis, however, were planning to kill each group six months after their arrival It's not strictly necessary, but why the six-month delay?

That's not simple to explain, see the longer explanation on Theresienstadt family camp

What does "organizing" mean in this context?

Added a short explanation

"I hate myself for having to watch women and children be killed... You need a ref directly a quote, especially a long one.

It does have a reference. The quote was in a German-language source. The German original is in the footnote, with a direct citation, which is recommended for user translated quotes per MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE.

Maybe move the link to Kapo (concentration camp) to the first mention of "prisoner functionary".

The kapo article is already linked earlier in the paragraph, for "block elder" (redirects to the same article). Another editor asked me to also link "kapo". I think having three links to the same article is probably too much.

What do you think of this edit? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, "kapo" is not synonymous with "prisoner functionary"; the former refers only to prisoners who supervised other prisoners and work details, while prisoner functionary includes clerks, and various others who had administrative roles. I ended up restoring the article prisoner functionary for the moment (it had been redirected to "kapo") and changed it so there is no link to "block elder" but linked "prisoner functionary" and "kapo". Catrìona (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

—more to come in the morning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pestek's actions should be evaluated more favorably than those of the guards who helped inmates escape during the evacuation of the camp in January 1945 in hopes of avoiding punishment for their crimes That sounds like an opinion but it appears to be written in Wikipedia's voice.

Changed to "Langbein evaluates Pestek's actions..."

I'd recommend putting the explanatory notes and translations under a separate level 2 header rather than under "references"

Done

Other than some minor nit-picking, the article appears to be in very good shape. Excellent work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Just noting for the record that I consider all my comments to be resolved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Gog the Mild

Disclosure: I assessed this article for GAN.

Suggestion only: "His unit was ordered to attack a village suspected to contain partisans" -> 'suspected of containing partisans'?

Done

"Pestek later said of this incident; "I was a murderer, and a Soviet partisan …" That should be a colon, not a semi colon.

Fixed

"He was dismissed from the fire brigade because he was caught smoking; he lost his protection from transports" This seems to me a little clumsy in two ways. "transports" seems to need a definite article, but would it be better to write 'transportation'? Possibly breaking the sentence there? And the semi colon doesn't really work for me; perhaps '... smoking and so lost...'?

Changed this sentence to be more readable

Suggestion only: "exactly six months from their arrival, the Jews from the family camp" Two "from's". Perhaps 'after' for the first one?* "he stole an SS uniform, pistol, and paybook for Lederer, who hid the supplies in a double wall" None of the items mentioned constitute "supplies". Suggest either adding supplies to the list or replacing "the supplies" with 'them'.

Changed to "them"

"On 20 April, before the return to Auschwitz, Lederer made the first of four or five visits to the Theresienstadt ghetto." "before the return to Auschwitz" seems unnecessary her. Can I suggest deleting it?

Removed

I have boldly made a couple of minor copy edits. Hopefully you are happy with them, but if not could you flag them up here?

Thanks!

Notwithstanding these minor points this is a fine article. It is noticeably improved since I assessed it for GA. Bravo. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solid stuff. Happy to support for A class. While here, can I make a couple of comments regarding your generally admirable writing style? A rhetorical question of course.

You seem unduly fond of semi colons. They have their place, but to my mind this article would read better if about half of them were replaced by full stops, with associated minor rewording. Not, for me, an issue at A class; it may be at FAC.
You also seem unduly fond of notes - a tendency I share. Many in this article could be incorporated into the text, possibly within parentheses; or while interesting are a little out of focus and could be dispensed with.

To be clear: this is a fine article; I wish that I could write as well as you; and my thoughts on ;;'s and notes may reflect my predilections more than anything you actually need to change.

Gog the Mild (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Gog the Mild - Pass

Placeholder. It's a'coming. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are all solidly reliable, being from reputable publishers or scholarly journals, with the exception of a couple of the web sites referenced where the context for this is clearly identified in the text. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

Cites 25 and 32 should be "pp.", not "p.".
Cilek. The English title should be in title case.
Czech. As above.
Tsur. As above.
Zdražilová. As above.
Zdražilová. The level of the thesis should be stated in the source. Eg "(PhD thesis)". (And was it accepted?)
Theresienstädter Studien und Dokumente (Kárný) should have an OCLC number. (Hint - 640335157)

Gog the Mild (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all of this except Zdražilová. I was unable to find whether it was a master's or PhD thesis, so I asked Chetsford—hopefully they will be able to figure it out. As an aside, I have a pdf of Karny and a word document from a scan of Tsur, so I would be happy to share those with you if you'd like to do more source checks. Catrìona (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, but I am happy with the checks I have done. When you submit it for FA ping me and remind me.

I am happy with everything except Zdražilová. If Chetsford reads Czech, then this may be the key document. (I can't persuade it to auto-translate and my Czech isn't up to academic terminology. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I ran the pdf through OCR and Google translate. It appears that it is a Diplomová práce (master's thesis). I could not tell if it was accepted, but the reviewers complained about spelling/grammar errors but praised the content and research. I'll wait to see what Chetsford says. Catrìona (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it might be. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Gog the Mild (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I've removed all references to Zdr. A bit of a shame, she had some interesting information on his family background. Catrìona (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that you might have to. As you say, a great shame. I wish that there were some way around it, but I don't think there is. Gog the Mild (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

Thank you all for all your helpful comments, I've listed this for closure since we have three supports. Hoping to take this to FAC soon. Catrìona (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.