The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:35, 8 March 2010 [1].

---

American Beauty (film)[edit]

American Beauty (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominators: Steve; Erik

• Featured article candidates/American Beauty (film)/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

On-set accidents! Suicidal dwarfs! A thousand elephants! This film's production has none of those. What you do get is a Hollywood rags-to-riches story for the writer and director (well, D-list to A-list), an Oscar campaign aggressive enough to make even the Weinsteins blush, teen nudity, crotchety cinematographers and incest. Allegedly. This is what's kept me from FAC reviewing for the last few months, after Erik suggested it almost as an aside when I said I wanted a bigger challenge after completing my last FA. So we set about taking it from this to what you see today. I don't think we did a bad job. Steve ^T • C 19:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I have watched this article develop, and it's blossomed into something beautiful. Brilliant job on everyone's part! ceranthor 20:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments. No dab links, no dead external links, alt text present. I made a few edits to the alt text to omit irrelevant details (such as exactly which direction a person is looking); I think it's good now. Ucucha 21:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Image check: There are 5 images and one movie file; one of the images is a montage. All applicable images are on Commons, and the CC-by-SA images have the author listed. The non-free media are the movie poster (identification of subject), the "jail" screen (identification of theme), and the movie file (iconic scene and emblematic of style). All three have a very fully-explained FUR. The montage is mad up of CC-by-SA images from Commons, and includes the authors of each sub-image. All images have a good caption. --PresN 22:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: Only a partial reading so far, but here are some points from the lead and "Plot" sections:-
  • What is a "cubicle worker"? (term unfamiliar to UK readers)
  • Tortured sentence: "He channeled his anger and cynicism from frustrating tenures writing for several sitcoms into the modified script." Suggest rephrase
  • "American Beauty marked acclaimed theater director Mendes' film directorial debut;" Slightly clumsy format; the "directorial" and "director" repetition is jarring. Perhaps a prose tweak?
  • Jargonistic: "expository bookend scenes." Needs a touch of explanation
  • In the Plot section I find repeated use of the abbreviation "Col." a bit distracting. He could be just "Fitts", or some variety could be introduced by calling him "the colonel" more often.
  • The description "dissociative" is obscure. Can you find a clearer term - anti-social, unsociable, reclusive, I don't know
  • Cryptic senetence: "Angela protests and Ricky answers her vanity by calling her ordinary." What is Angela protesting about, what is "her vanity" referring to, and shouldn't "ordinary" be in quotes?

Brianboulton (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi; thanks for the comments. Some replies:
  • You really think "cubicle worker" will be unfamiliar to UK readers? It's a term I've heard lots of times. Still, maybe it's a product of overexposure to US pop culture, so I've swapped it out for "office worker"; it's not necessary to make the distinction here (whereas it is important later).
  • "Tortured sentence"—agreed; changed. Had to go passive, but I think it works.
  • The "directorial" is probably redundant; we already say he's the director. Removed.
  • On reflection, rather than expand to explain what the bookend scenes were about, I've trimmed and replaced with the broader, "During editing, Mendes made several changes that gave the film a less cynical tone." The bookend scenes weren't the only changes, so this is probably a better fit.
  • "dissociative"—it seemed an accurate description of Mrs Fitts, but in hindsight, that's a term with a specific medical meaning. No reliable source "diagnoses" her as having dissociative disorder, so I've swapped it for "barely communicative" "introverted".
  • I used Col. Fitts throughout the article to disambiguate from Ricky and Barbara Fitts, but your alternative is a good one. Done.
  • To give Ricky's calling Angela ordinary enough context ... I think we'd need to add too much and might stray into OR territory. It's not important enough to mention, so I've replaced it.
• Thanks again. Steve ^T • C 14:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC) (Edited at 22:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment The article is 75kb of readable prose - this is going to have to be cut down. WP:SIZE recommends that articles not exceed 30 - 50kb of readable prose, and even that is hard for most readers to get through in a single sitting. I will read the article and make some suggestions for deletion, but I wanted the nominators to be aware that some serious editing needs to take place. Awadewit (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm wondering if so much detail needs to be included in the plot summary. I would suggest trying to reduce the plot summary by about a paragraph, if at all possible. Can individual details, such as the fact that Ricky's father beats him, be left out?

• The problem of interpreting the film is tied in with that of finding its true author—a controlling voice who "[unites] all of the choices".[3] Postmodernist readings, such as those advocated by Derridean, Foucaultian or Barthesian philosophies, posit no need for an identified voice,[nb 1] and although the literary critic and author Wayne C. Booth argues that all successful films have one,[nb 2] he contends that in American Beauty's case it is neither Mendes nor Ball.[5] Mendes considers the voice to be Ball's, but even while the writer was "strongly influential" on set,[3] he often accepted that deviations from his vision were improvements.[5] The film does not include Ball's framing device, in which Jane and Ricky are convicted of Lester's murder. The omission transforms the tone from Ball's conclusion that "the world sucks" into something more optimistic that sees "Lester's spirit affirmatively taking wing" by the end. Similarly, in Ball's original script, Lester and Angela had sex; Lester's refusal to go through with the act in the completed film gives the character a "moral illumination" that was not present before. Booth argues that because Ball's cynical intent was lost, his cannot be considered the controlling voice.[6] - I would cut all of this - what is not in the film is generally not as important as what is. Also, individual film articles are not the place to explain film theory. If you want to write a separate Themes of American Beauty (film) article, that would be the place for this.

• The complementary aspects of filmmaking—such as improvisations, music, lighting and chance—take the film further from Mendes and Ball's control.[5] The significance of chance is highlighted by Mendes and Conrad Hall's contradictory explanations of particular scenes. In an audio commentary on the American Beauty DVD, Hall sometimes refutes Mendes' praise of his cinematography; what Mendes sees as a thematic choice Hall will explain as accidental, brought about through practical considerations or because it produced pleasing imagery. An example is the scene in which Lester is confronted by his manager. Hall shot Spacey in a way that Mendes believed intentionally diminished Lester. Mendes says, "Conrad's added something so beautiful to the shot ... the way the light hits Lester ... it pulls him down away from the wall ... [Hall has] also done something very crucial, [cutting] his feet off at the bottom of the frame." Mendes believed the shot weakened Lester "by cropping him and pushing him down the frame, making him even less authoritative in the face of Brad ... who is consistently shot from below." Hall says that was not his goal; he framed the shot that way just to get a ceiling lamp in the frame. Although Mendes and Hall's goals were separate, the result satisfied both filmmakers.[7] - I would cut all of this. This is using American Beauty is discuss a particular aspect of film theory - it is not making a specific point about the film itself.

• Booth concludes that one interpretation of the film is not enough:[1][American Beauty] cannot be adequately summarized as "here is a satire on what's wrong with American life"; that plays down the celebration of beauty. It is more tempting to summarize it as "a portrait of the beauty underlying American miseries and misdeeds"; but that plays down the scenes of cruelty and horror, and Ball's disgust with our mores. It cannot be summarized with either Lester's or Rickie's philosophical statements about what life is or how one should live; [Ball's] commitment to ... some form of religious perspective [has been] cut or reduced in the released version.With "innumerable voices intruding on the original author's," Booth says, those who interpret American Beauty "have forgotten to probe for the elusive center". According to Booth, the film's true controller—the center—is the creative energy "that hundreds of people put into its production, agreeing and disagreeing, inserting and cutting".[1] - I would cut this down significantly, integrating it into the beginning of the "Multiple interpretations" section. What is important to realize is that all films have multiple interpretations for academics, not just American Beauty - we need to highlight what is different about American Beauty in this respect.

• In the section on "Imprisonsent and redemption", I would suggest cutting out some of the examples of imprisonment and turning points - we don't need to list them all. Anything that is listed as "first" or "most important" should be kept, however.

• The first paragraph of "Conformity and beauty" can be cut down by deleting some of the quotations at the end, which start to repeat ideas. Also, I'm not sure that the material at the beginning of the paragraph, on the gay couple, is necessary. It is a nice addition, but I'm not sure it is necessary. Perhaps a one-sentence version?

• In the second paragraph of "Conformity and beauty", we can cut some of the material on Lester's journey to be more like Ricky, which takes about half of that paragraph. That idea can be conveyed in about three sentences - we don't need all of the details.

• The first paragraph of "Sexuality and repression" has too many examples - cut these down to something like three.

• I wouuld suggest paraphrasing the quote in the second paragraph of "Sexuality and repression" - that is a hard bit of analysis for the lay reader to understand.

• The last paragraph of "Temporality and music" would read better with only one or two examples.

• I think that the autobiographical elements of the plot should be confined to one paragraph in the "Writing" section.

• There is too much on the setting that wasn't chosen in the "Filming" section - just talk about the town where it was shot.

• The fifth paragraph in "Filming" about the homages seems like just a list. Some of the examples are better than others, though, because they have explanations about why they were included in the film. In general, though, I didn't think that this paragraph added as much to the article as the surronding ones.

• The last paragraph of "Editing" does not tell the reader as much as the rest of the section - the rest of the section conveys how the film was produced, the problems with selecting scenes, filming them, and ordering them. The last paragraph divorces much of that process, however. I would suggest cutting much of that.

• The "Theatrical run" section is almost unreadable - it is just a string of dates and numbers. Would this information be better in a table?

• The Blockbuster kerfuffle deserves one paragraph, in my opinion, not two.

• I would suggest combining paragraphs two and three of "Accolades" by cutting some details, such as the Gallup Poll and the bit about the Publicists Guild.

These are some suggestions for places to cut. I'm not saying "Cut these or I won't support" - I'm saying, if you want readers to get through the entire article, some material is going to have to be cut and here are some places I thought you could cut without losing too much. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for the suggestions. I don't necessarily disagree with you, though I think there might be a good arguments for keeping a couple of those. I'm off out, but that'll give me a chance to mull it over before responding more fully (either when I get in tonight, or tomorrow). Thanks, Steve ^T • C 17:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I had a longer response typed out last night, but I'm glad I didn't post it. Nothing horrible, but I was a bit whiny about losing content, when I'd already cut 14kb pre-FAC. :-) I do still feel that an article like this is unlikely to be read in one sitting anyway, and that WP:SIZE is a bit out-of-touch, considering multiple FA precedents, but I can see the wisdom of most of these suggestions. With that in mind, I'll be tackling them over the next day or so. I've already done the easiest, trimming the plot section by eliminating irrelevant details (though I kept the bit about the colonel's beating Ricky, as it's referenced in "Themes"). I don't know if you're watching this page, so I'll ping you when [I feel] I've resolved your concern. Thanks again, Steve ^T • C 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered creating subarticles and making this a summary-style article? Ucucha 00:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Indeed, what content can be spun off into sub-articles has already been (score & soundtrack listings, list of awards and nominations). Experience shows that film articles don't lend themselves to as much splitting as might other subjects; I think to fork any more would be to the detriment of overall context. The weight of coverage the film has received over the last ten years means this will always be pretty large, but I think I can get this down to an acceptable size without further splits. (Thanks for tweaking the alt text, by the way; I should have thanked you above.) All the best, Steve ^T • C 08:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

←Update: I've now worked through the article, making cuts to all the suggested areas and a couple I spotted myself. I didn't put the information from "Theatrical run" into a table, as it just didn't lend itself to the format, but I did remove a lot of the guff, and I think it's parsable now. I retained a few other tidbits, but the article is now shorter by 25Kb than it was a couple of weeks ago, and 11kb shorter than yesterday. Still large, but a lot more manageable; it's well below many featured articles, and a few other film FAs. Steve ^T • C 23:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC) (Edited at 23:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry it has taken me so long to return to this FAC. Some off-wiki drama arose in my life. Anyway, I still think 67 kB is too long for an article on a single film. The point of the article is to summarize what has been said about the film, not repeat the majority of it. I feel that the article could do a better job of this. I do understand how difficult it is to cut an article that one has worked so hard on, but it is possible (I've done it myself). I would strongly urge the creation of subarticles - that way the material is not lost. I'm afraid I don't have time to work further on this FAC at the moment, but I did want to register my comments. From my perspective, the article is, without a doubt, comprehensive and well-researched. I think that it needs a bit of work on summary style, however. That said, it is still a wonderful achievement. I hope that I can return and help out more - I would really like to do so, but I simply cannot promise anything at this time. Awadewit (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read much of the available literature, trust me when I say that this is a summary rather than a reproduction; this film has had a heck of a lot written about it and you should see some of the material I discarded. :-) Still, thank you for coming back to take another look, and especially for your kind words about the other aspects of the article. However, I think it's at this stage that I make a stand about the size. If this scuppers the FAC, then I'll happily accept that result. For other potential reviewers, I'll simply point to my previous arguments: the individual aspects of a film's production—development, filming, post, etc.—do not lend themselves to being spun-off as well as the subsections of other articles, not without losing vital context; with a definite beginning, middle and end-result, filmmaking is a closed process with a strong narrative running through it; the better film articles reflect that. In this case, I think the whole would be weakened if any more than the three current sub-articles were spun-out. And should this pass, it would not be anywhere near the largest FA, nor even the largest film FA. I've made efforts to reduce load times—for example, converting the citation templates to fully-written cites. As for holding readers' interest, I don't think that's an issue. Everyone's different; when reading articles this size some people will take the time to read it all, others will skip to the sections they have a particular interest in, while some will simply use it as a quick reference point for specific facts they want to research. Our goal should be to present the most comprehensive resource available anywhere online, for whatever use; I think we've achieved that. Please trust me when I say that none of my comments come from a particular love of my own prose; I'm more than happy to put some in strategic distance before coming back to wield the axe. And I really do appreciate the time you spent looking at the article. You have helped improve it; indeed, you indirectly led me to this point in the first place. Thanks again, Steve ^T • C 22:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~ but firstly, I'm a friend of Steve's in real life (though primarily online) so I therefore manfully recuse myself from any praise of this superlative and exemplary article and shall confine myself to comment on the negligible points I (or the article) need(s) help with:
  • Section Cinematography; the first sentence is unreferenced which seems a particular problem in that it makes a rather negative assessment of someone's working relationships.
  • Section Footnotes; Ref 43 just says "2004" and when I click on it my browser just scrolls right to the bottom of the article page with nothing highlighted for me to look at. I'm not sure what that means. I can't see any references to a publication just named "2004" or anything, so I'm confused.
  • Section Footnotes; those ones that say Mendes & Ball 2000 and then have a chapter number, those chapter numbers are the chapter numbers of the DVD, I guess? But I have been unable to satisfy myself that this is for certain by examining the article and all the notes carefully. And again, when I click on them (eg footnotes 6, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18...) my browser just jumps to the very bottom of the article page with nothing showing as highlighted and nothing on the screen, as far as I can see, that relates to what I've clicked. Does this signify something's broken?

This article marks a significant turning point in my Wikipedia life in that it's the first film article I've spent more time reading than actually watching the film and I am hard pushed to say which was the more enjoyable use of a couple of hours. --bodnotbod (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for those kind words. They mean a lot, coming from you. Honestly. Though I realise no-one else here has any way of knowing that's true. :-) I've checked the references you mentioned, and they all seem to work for me, both in Firefox and Internet Explorer. However, it looks like you've been reading this while I've been making changes, so perhaps one of my intermediate edits munged the links temporarily and you happened to be reading that version. Try it again, and if it still doesn't work ... I'll check on another PC and get back to you (though I might reply on your talk, to prevent this page getting too large). On the "unreferenced" sentence at the beginning of Cinematography, cite [132] covers it; throughout the article, any citation you see covers the block of text before it—i.e. multiple sentences—right up to the preceding citation. Thanks again, Steve ^T • C

The '2004' ref works fine now. The ones to the DVD commentary still function a bit strange; my browser just goes off to the bottom, but if I scroll up a little bit I can indeed see the DVD commentary reference highlighted. I shall put it down to a browser glitch... Aha! I've been using Chrome; it works fine in FF. I'll keep an eye out for this possible Chrome bug as I review other articles. But as far as this is concerned, support for Featured Article status. --bodnotbod (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: to help the closing delegate more easily tally "supports" and "opposes", I've edited the above comment to remove the bold formatting on the last sentence. Bod won't mind. :-) Steve ^T • C 08:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: A very fine article, even if I think the film is a touch overrated :) You won't get any complaints from me about length, but then again, I'm the writer of that 13,000 word Star Trek: The Motion Picture (I'm sure Awadewit would've have conniptions about that one.) I've got a few areas where I could do with some clarification, I'll add more as I plow through the article :)
  • "Lester is told he is to be laid off, but blackmails his boss and quits his job, taking employment serving fast food." This gets me... why would he blackmail his boss before he is laid off, yet still quit his job? What does he get out of it?
  • Stupid thought went here but I cut it before hitting save
  • In the themes section, I'd like the critics/authors/academics to get at least a passing mention of exactly who they are, especially when they aren't wikilinked (anyone can call themselves academics now :P) I'm also a tad uncomfortable with the latter section of the themes, where it appears (from a cursory glance) that the sources are saying what the film is, rather than what these people think it to be (ex., "Colors are used symbolically throughout the film,[34] none more so than red, which is an important thematic signature that drives the story and "[defines] Lester's arc"., it's not clear since this is a new paragraph who's saying this.)
  • You mix "non-diegetic" and "nondiegetic".

Yarp. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarified by mentioning that he gets $60,000 out of it.
• Silly reply that references some previous interaction.
• An earlier version mentioned their credentials, but I cut them when trying something, anything to reduce the word count. :-) I've readded them (though I might relegate the info. to footnotes before the end), but I'm not sure what to call Patti Bellantoni—"colour expert"? :-)
• Done!

• Cheers for taking a look, Steve ^T • C 23:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Further, on sources: The vast majority of sources are print, or else web refs to print/news, as well as trade journals and the like; while I am less familiar with book publishers, they all appear to be university presses or longstanding publishers, nothing raises a red flag. I'd say that they meet the "high quality" threshold for reliable sources. (One thing though: could we get accessdates for the news articles with a URL? And do you have pagination for the print news stories?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi David, please don't quote me on it but the last time I checked on the discussions at WT:CITE, the consensus was that retrieval dates are not required for web pages of news articles that are also available in print. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, sorry for taking so long to respond. Yes, the accessdates are missing for those because I saw a discussion recently that said they were unnecessary. I can't remember exactly where; I'm sure it wasn't at WT:CITE, but I think Ealdgyth was involved. I'll see if I can find it. On the page numbers for the print sources ... I included all the ones I had, but IIRC many were sent electronically and didn't have them. I'll see what I can find. Steve ^T • C 23:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't worry, I believe you :P Anyhow, I think the article meets 1c and 3 at least... I'll try and give a thorough review this weekend, but I'm not sure how much I'll actually get done, so don't hold me to that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I dug my notes out and found some page numbers I'd omitted. So added. Nothing on the Variety and Hollywood Reporter cites, unfortunately, but I don't think it matters too much. Cheers, Steve ^T • C 22:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, what an informative article! I'm leaning support, but I share the size concerns noted above. If I recall correctly, another user suggested splitting Themes and analysis into a new article (there's certainly enough content in there to warrant one, especially if you've already removed a considerable chunk from it). If you do split it you'd be able to trim the section in this article quite considerably, which would probably reduce the size so that it reaches a point where the concerns are nullified. It's the only aspect standing in my way of a full support, but if you're absolutely certain that no more can be split or removed then I'll withdraw the "leaning" part. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi! At this stage, I'm content with the size and feel to split Themes/Interpretations would be to the detriment of both the material there and the article as a whole. The one complements the other, and while the article is large, it's well within precedent. I don't mean to sound ungrateful for your taking a look—it's much appreciated—but the article is already a lot shorter than it was a few weeks ago, cut by almost 13% on the readable prose front. I wouldn't be comfortable cutting any more than that, as I think the rationales I've laid out in my other replies are sound. Thanks again, Steve ^T • C 22:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Ah, makes sense then, and I agree with where you are coming from. You have my support. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. :-) Steve ^T • C 22:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Outstanding article. Everything about it impresses me, the style, the format, citations, prose; concerned editors should be extremely proud of developing the best film article. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comment - beginning a read through now and will jot any notes below. Feel free to revert any prose changes I make which inadvertently change meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why is "nondiegetic" in quotation marks?

The only other (minor) quibble I have is that I feel there are too many direct quotes from critics and critiques. However, I am not sure there is an easy way around this without inadvertently changing meaning. In any case, the article stands up really well.

Overall, well done - I had to review this to get a sense of completion - a good film with as sucky a cop-out ending as I have seen (umm...gee, let's solve the moral dilemma of Lester by killing him...(facepalm)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mendes would go with the "mythic quest" excuse; the death of the hero is a well-established trope. ;-) Ahh ... everyone seems to have a problem with the ending. For William Goldman, it was because Lester didn't have it off with Angela ("That's such Hollywood horseshit ... He's got to fuck her!"—lovely quote, not from a RS, unfortunately). Anyway, back on topic: I know what you mean about the direct quotes, especially in the analysis section; that was such a bugger to write to make sure I didn't misrepresent the sources. Early attempts too often missed the point, but I overcompensated in later versions and hewed too close to the source text. In the end, I felt it best to acknowledge my limitations and spatter the section with quotes. "Nondiegetic" is I think a holdover from that. I'll take another look to see what else I can paraphrase. Oh, and cheers for the review and support; I know it was a long one to look over, so it's appreciated that you took the time. Steve ^T • C 00:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, it was a great read :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Rather good, I say. Can you get your colleagues at the WikiProject films to bring the field up to this standard? Well done.

• "Mena Suvari, Wes Bentley, Chris Cooper and Allison Janney also feature." Stubby sentence. Perhaps a semicolon before it? Or is there another way of working in this information?
• "more well-known actors"—better as "better-known actors"? Unsure.

But really, these are trivial. I think I might get the DVD. Tony (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC) PS Ah, it's Steve who has nominated this (with colleague). I might have guessed: he has created an excellent writing tutorial for the Wikiproject, based in part on the MilHist equivalent. Tony (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for taking a look, and for those very kind words. Your suggestions above look like good ones, so I'll amend accordingly. All the best, Steve ^T • C 00:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A very well written and informational article. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 00:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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