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 23:13, 17 October 2009 [1].

---

Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy[edit]

Nominator(s): Tezkag72 (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this for featured article because after a GAN, a long-running peer review, and about a month of me not really doing anything due to a lack of time, I believe the article meets the criteria. Tezkag72 (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://gameboy.about.com/od/developmentandpublishing/a/LEGOSWInterview_2.htm
    • All instances removed. Tezkag72 (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.xbox.com/en-IE/games/l/legostarwars2xbox360/
    • This is from the official Xbox website. It's only used to source the PEGI rating, not any extensive information on the game. Tezkag72 (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Current ref 73 (Dunham ...) lacks a publisher. Also, it links to an article by Craig Harris, not Dunham (since Harris is next in the refs, I suspect a copy paste error here...)
  • Done. Tezkag72 (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Current ref 74 (harris...) lacks a publisher
  • Done. Tezkag72 (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Current refs 76, 77, 78, 80 (Dunham..) lacks a publisher
  • Done. Tezkag72 (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Current ref 79 is just a name (Dunham, Jeremy) missing the rest of the citation?
  • It was a formatting error. I apparently forgot to put a | between the title and the url. Don't know how that one got past me, but it's fixed now. Tezkag72 (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It needs work. I'll list a few of the points now, the rest later. Starting with the lead:
  • Doesn't follow typical lead structure. The developer and publisher are listed in a tiny second paragraph, rather than the first sentence. The first sentence is an enormous list of bluelinked platforms; get rid of these. Try, "Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy is a 2006 multi-platform action-adventure video game developed by Traveller's Tales and published by TT Games." Leave the platform list to the infobox.
    • Done. Tezkag72 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another problem with the lead is that it goes into unnecessary detail, and dwells on topics far too long. Take this, for example: "Lego Star Wars II's levels cover the events of Star Wars episodes A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi, which are collectively known as the original trilogy; whereas Lego Star Wars's levels covered the events of episodes The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith, which are collectively known as the prequel trilogy." We have bluelinks so people can find this stuff out for themselves. This could easily be cut down to "Lego Star Wars II's levels cover the events of the original Star Wars films A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi." Also, this lead is for Lego Star Wars II, right? So why this: "It retained the gameplay of Lego Star Wars II and allowed players to play through the levels of both Lego Star Wars and Lego Star Wars II"? Leave it for the bluelinks.
      • Done. Tezkag72 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are citations in the lead, which is unnecessary.
      • Any quoted material, even in the lead, has to be cited. Tezkag72 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Information is too scattered. Be brief, summarize things one topic at a time. For example, in the first paragraph, we see: "Its gameplay is similar to that of its predecessor, Lego Star Wars: The Video Game". However, in the second: "Improvements were made from Lego Star Wars's gameplay". Firstly, the wording is vague and unhelpful (per WP:LEAD, don't tease the reader), and secondly, the two sentences should be together. The characters sentence—"The game has over 50 playable characters taken from the films; the player can also create customized characters"—should probably go with them. Finally, "Lego Star Wars had been critically and commercially successful, causing Lego Star Wars II to be highly anticipated". This is repeated in the paragraph below it. Combine the two sentences.
    • Also, it's too long.
      • Done. Tezkag72 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is information from the lead copied word-for-word in Gameplay? Also, the section should be more concise. It digresses and goes into unnecessary detail. Keep it brief.
    • I'm not sure how to make it more consise. All the information seems necessary. Tezkag72 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Characters armed with a gun can use a grappling hook to reach higher areas when they stand inside a small red circle, and can attack enemies from a distance; while those armed with a lightsaber can double jump,[28] use the Force to move certain objects, and use their lightsaber to deflect enemies' projectiles.[31] R2-D2, C-3PO, and other characters are needed to open certain doors.[32] Small characters like the Ewok can crawl through small hatches to reach otherwise inaccessible areas. Bounty hunters like Boba Fett can throw thermal detonators to destroy otherwise indestructible objects.[33] Sith like Darth Vader can use the Force to manipulate black Lego objects.[28] Some characters have unique abilities such as Chewbacca's ability to rip enemies' arms from their sockets, Darth Vader choking enemies with the Force,[24] Lando Calrissian's kung-fu-like attack (a favorite of the developers),[34] and Princess Leia's ability to slap enemies.[15]"
      • "Three types of secret items can be collected in the game's levels: "gold bricks", "minikits", and "power bricks". Gold bricks are obtained after completing levels, achieving "True Jedi" (collecting a certain number of studs) in the story and free play mode of each level, and completing bonus levels. There are 99 gold bricks in the game; obtaining certain numbers of them unlocks rewards, such as access to a spigot that spews out Lego studs. Minikits are small canisters that are hidden in difficult-to-access places in levels. There are ten in each level.[19] Finding all ten minikits in a level unlocks a gold brick, and a vehicle that can be used in a bonus level[18] and viewed outside the cantina.[20] The final type of secret item is the power brick, a red Lego brick; one is hidden in each level. Collecting them makes various extras (such as invincibility and stud multipliers) available for purchase in the cantina.[19]"
      • Both of these could be shortened significantly. Also, I recommend removing the Characters subheading and merging the dispersing its information throughout Gameplay. This will help with other problems I didn't catch last time: redundant and scattered information. For example, you mention the Mos Eisley Cantina in the second paragraph, but then we get this info later on in the section: "In the Mos Eisley Cantina, the player can use studs to purchase characters, vehicles, gameplay hints, gold bricks, and extras. The player can also visit a small outdoor area, create customized characters,[21] or use cheat codes to unlock characters, extras,[22] or Easter eggs such as a Santa Claus character.[23]" You mention it again in Characters: "More can be purchased at the Mos Eisley Cantina. When a character is unlocked, their pieces can be used in character customization.[24][29]". Discuss one subject at a time; going back on yourself causes unnecessary confusion to the reader. This happens countless times in Gameplay and Characters. Here's another example: "The player takes the form of various characters from the films, armed with a gun or a lightsaber, and plays through the levels,[11] collecting Lego "studs", small disk-like objects that serve as the game's currency.[17] Completing levels requires the player to defeat enemies, build objects out of Lego bricks,[11] drive vehicles,[12][18] and switch between playable characters for their abilities". But you mention this again in Characters. Introduce it once; merge a shortened version of Characters here, like the part about special abilities. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is rough in places. See this: "Lego Star Wars II places greater emphasis on character abilities than Lego Star Wars;[30] they have various abilities which makes it necessary to switch between them at times". This is extremely vague and full of redundant words. Try, "Character abilities have a larger role in Lego Star Wars II than in Lego Star Wars," and leave the last part to the next few sentences. Other examples include:
    • Done. Tezkag72 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Many locations from the films have been adapted into levels, including the planets Hoth, Bespin, Dagobah, Tatooine, the forest moon of Endor, and both Death Stars." - Try, "The game includes levels based on locations from the films, such as Hoth, Bespin, Dagobah, the forest moon of Endor, Tatooine and the Death Star".
      • Done. Tezkag72 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Once each level is completed in story mode; it can be played in free play, and the next level in the same episode can be played in story mode". - I don't understand it well enough to offer a suggestion. Just improve it.
      • Reworded to "Completing a level in story mode unlocks its free play mode as well as the story mode of the next level in the episode." Tezkag72 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In story mode, only a few characters can be played, but in free play, all unlocked characters can be played". - "Story mode features set playable characters, while free play grants access to all characters".
      • Done. Tezkag72 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Once all ten minikits are found, the player unlocks a vehicle that can be used in a bonus level unlocked after completing the episode, and viewed—but not driven—outside the Mos Eisley Cantina." - Extremely unclear, awkwardly worded; again, I can't understand it well enough to offer an improvement.
      • Done. Tezkag72 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Gold bricks are items that are obtained after completing a level, achieving "True Jedi" (collecting a high number of studs) in both the story and free play modes of each level, collecting all ten minikits in each level, and completing special missions for each episode". - See above.
      • Done. Tezkag72 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basically, get a few copyeditors—preferably those who are familiar with the game—to go over the whole thing.
      • I already requested help in this area from two people, but neither responded. Where should I take it? Perhaps WT:VG? Tezkag72 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You could try that. You might also try the things I suggested to this guy. If you find someone, I'll give them a hand. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gameplay image is a cutscene. Why not a gameplay shot? Who can tell what the game looks like in action without one?
    • There wasn't a specific issue related to gameplay that was commented on by many reviewers. A fair use image needs to show significance to pass NFCC. Tezkag72 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The significance is that it displays components of the game described in the prose, which would prove confusing to the average reader without a visual aid. It's currently suffering from this, and it doesn't even mention what perspective the game takes place from, or what dimension it's in. There also isn't much description of the HUD or interface. This stuff should be included anyway, so it's not like you're going out of your way to justify a gameplay image. Once that's in, put in an image that displays what you're describing, and you're set. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. The image I added, File:LegoStarWarsIILukeAndR2D2.JPG, should do it. Tezkag72 (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• That's all for now. To summarize: find copyeditors, rewrite the lead, shorten the lead and Gameplay, get a better screenshot, and make it clearer for the uninitiated. I'll be back today or tomorrow with a more thorough review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comments above. I'll begin working on an expanded review of the article. From what I've seen so far, the bones are here, but they need to be polished. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Image copyright check: Box art and single screenshot are valid non-free use. I would encourage adding the copyright holder credit explicitly to the images as encouraged by WP:NFCC#10a. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• More:
  • Development:
    • First off, who's Gullet?
      • Done. Sorry; there used to be a quote from him but I had to remove it because it was from About.com. That quote came before the current mention of "Gullet", and it was redundant to say "Assistant producer Jeff Gullet" twice. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any way more meat could be added to development? Very little of the game's actual "development" is in here. Two sentences that hint at it—"Improvements were made from Lego Star Wars in terms of gameplay[38] and camera movement.[29]", "An effort was made to recreate the characters and events of the original trilogy in a "cute" way."—don't really elaborate.
      • What's there is all I was able to dig up. When I started working on the article, there was no development section. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perkinson's quotes, which are a large part of the section, do not have any obvious point. It just looks like one guy's opinion, not so much the game's design.
      • Removed one of his quotes and merged the other, along with the Gullet quote, into the first paragraph. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recommend that you take Jim Ward's quote out of quotation marks, paraphrase parts of it, and put it near the beginning of the section. Highlight in particular this line: "to make this feel like the true sequel our fans have been clamoring for".
    • You need to mention the game's release date(s).
      • Done. The section is now "Development and release", to cover both. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The compilation subheading is unnecessary; remove it, cut the subsection down to a few sentences, and merge into the end of Development.
      • Done. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll get back to you on Reception tomorrow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The short paragraph at the start of the reception section looks out of place, as if you couldn't stick that information in anywhere else. Could it not be expanded to include the various platforms, thus making it look like a proper section? Also, it would make the long chain of citation numbers break up. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 01:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for coming by. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks far better. I'll support this fine article. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 00:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Quote by developer Jim Ward at the end of the Development section should be changed to a non-decorative blockquote formatting, as per WP:MOSQUOTE.
    • Done. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nintendo Power staff writer Chris Shepperd, giving the game a 7.5 out of 10"—why are you mentioning the score considering it's in the table anyhow?
    • Done. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I swapped out the infobox image for a cleaner one that didn't have the rating/seal of quality splashed all over it. The other_information info should probably be adapted to the other nonfree image.
    • Done. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments when I get the chance. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry I've been so slow with these reviews. It looks like most of my concerns have not yet been addressed, though. I understand if you're busy, but you run the risk of the nomination being closed due to perceived inactivity. Anyway, the final review: Reception.
  • I agree with the above comment: the small paragraph needs to be dealt with. I recommend removing the Critical reception subheading, and letting all that sit together. While you're at it, the table needs work; it's very intrusive. Also, the scope of reviews should be improved. I would not support a computer game article lacking Computer Gaming World and PC Gamer reviews, and the same goes for a video game article without Electonic Gaming Monthly and Game Informer reviews. Both groups were/are (CGW and EGM are dead) the foremost reviewers in their fields, and must be represented.
    • I couldn't find a review from any of those reviewers. I looked for a Game Informer review when I started working on the article. Tezkag72 (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both reviews can be obtained from our Reference library. Metacritic says that the reviews were in the October 2006 issue of each magazine; User:Mitaphane and User:Sesu_Prime list here and here that they have access to those issues. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Beyond that, the section looks pretty good. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Progress report: it's looking better. My two biggest concerns now are the prose and the bloated Gameplay section. As I said, if you can locate a copyeditor, I'll lend them a hand, which will get the job done quickly. As for the Gameplay section, I made suggestions earlier that are still relevant. Namely, redundant information, and overdetail in certain areas (specified above). JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put messages on the talk pages of the two users and of WikiProject Video games. I don't want to merge the Characters paragraph into Gameplay, though, because it will make the Gameplay section too big, and the article needs somewhere to put the "main article" thing. Tezkag72 (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's true. I guess those problems will have to fixed during the copyedit, on a case-by-case basis, rather than in one swing. Hopefully you get a response from those people. If no one offers to copyedit, I can do it solo; I'd much prefer a secondary role, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll wait a bit and see. By the way, I added the Game Informer review. Tezkag72 (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, no one's responded. Do whatever you think has to be done, or tell me some things to do so I can help. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay. It's difficult to copyedit your own writing, particularly when you've done it recently; you can't see the errors. It's probably best if I do it. I'll have it done within the next few days. Also, it looks like David Fuchs did some copyediting, and he left a few notes that you should probably address. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per 1a. The prose isn't there yet. I've done some more minor copyedits, and left more notes. The main issue left as I see it is the reception section, which just sounds damned clunky. There's lots of repetitious phrasing and structure, and (a pet peeve) publications are named rather than the critics who wrote for them. The awards section reads as a laundry list with no real schema for division of paragraphs or awards. For a (IMO) good example of how to write the sections, see Halo Wars#Reception. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done some rewording on Reception. I'll do Awards later. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Actually, Awards is organized. It first mentions actual awards, then places in "best of" lists. Tezkag72 (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Awards is now merged into Reception. I did some rewording and shortening and it's one paragraph now. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's better, but there are still issues. The second paragraph, for example, lacks a topic sentence. Critics not named, e.g. "Theobald, Davis and IGN criticized the high number of glitches in the DS version". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added topic sentence. The reason critics are not named is that they are already mentioned. I didn't think of this idea; JimmyBlackwing did, and I trust him for it. Tezkag72 (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • David Fuchs has not returned. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The first copyediting pass is complete, but I'll continue to fix errors as I see them. However, I think that the Awards section needs to go; it's barely even prose. Perhaps you should axe the section, and create a paragraph at the end of Reception dedicated to its most outstanding awards. Namely: IGN's "Best PC Action Game of 2006", Spike TV Video Game Awards 2006's "Best Game Based on a Movie or TV Show", BAFTA Video Game Awards's "Best Gameplay", "Time magazine listed the game as the ninth of the top ten video games of 2006", "Reader's Digest named it as one of "5 Things We Don't Want You to Miss" in their September 2006 issue", its nominations for BAFTA's "Best Children's Game", "Best Character" (Han Solo), and "Best Game", and "On December 22, 2006, StarWars.com declared it the best Star Wars-related product of 2006". Work these together as a prose paragraph, and it'll be more interesting. Wikipedia doesn't exist to provide perfectly detailed information, anyway. See Wikipedia:Summary style. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did some more work on it. I noticed in here that the article does not include the Official Xbox Magazine, PSM or BusinessWeek reviews. Why omit these in favor of lesser sources, such as Allgame and GameSpy? Sure, they're reliable sources, but OXM, PSM and BusinessWeek are better sources. If you can access these, include them, along with the EGM review—when you get that. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Tezkag72 (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Status update: looks like my issues have been resolved. But as one last request, it'd be great if you could also include the Official PlayStation Magazine review, to further flesh out the Reception section. I support the article, anyway. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • PlayStation: The Official Magazine is there; is that what you meant? Anyway, thanks for the support. Tezkag72 (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • No. PlayStation: The Official Magazine (previously known as PSM) is published by Future, the publisher of Edge and Next Generation Magazine, among others. Official PlayStation Magazine U.S. (or OPM) was published by Ziff Davis, and was part of the EGM/OXM/Computer Gaming World family of magazines. I brought it up because I saw the review excerpted over at Metacritic, and since OPM's an important, high-quality source, I figured it should be in the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're probably right. Done. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning towards support (Note: I did not review the sources.) This article appears to be comprehensive, but the paragraphs and sentences do not flow as well as they could. I would suggest another run-through by a copyeditor. Here are some examples of what I mean:

• Player characters' health appears as four hearts on the game's heads-up display; characters die when these hearts are depleted, and a small amount of Lego studs—small, disk-shaped objects that serve as the game's currency—bounce away. However, the character instantly reappears, and the studs can be recollected. - Hard to follow
• Each film is split into six levels, and the game features bonus levels. - It is not clear why the films are being referred to at this point.
• One power brick is hidden in each level, and collecting them makes extras available for purchase, such as invincibility and stud multipliers. - Unclear - this makes it sound like invincibility and multipliers are bricks.
• This was the day before the DVD release of the uncut original trilogy. - This fact seems a bit random.

Let me know when the article has been copyedited again and I'll reread it. I look forward to fully supporting the article soon.Awadewit (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was copyedited by JimmyBlackwing as he saw fit to support it. Also, it seems like you already corrected these things. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article may have been copyedited already, but that doesn't mean all reviewers agree that the prose is of FA quality - I obviously still see some issues. I didn't correct the above problems - did someone else? Awadewit (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I did :) Karanacs (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I copyedited all but the reception section (which is likely still due for one). A few small points:

• I don't think this point makes sense in the article as is. Perhaps more information would help -> The game was praised as a result of reviewers' preference of the original trilogy over the prequel trilogy. Anthony Reiner of Game Informer said that "comparing [the prequel trilogy] to the films in the original trilogy is similar to comparing Jar Jar Binks to Han Solo".
• I think we ought to make it more clear that the characters that are available in story mode correspond to characters that appear in that section of the movie. Because I am unfamiliar with the sources, I didn't want to add that in myself. Karanacs (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Tezkag72 (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two links are dead. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those links went dead recently, and at least one of them is available at archive.org, and they are sparsely used -- but please update them. I could have updated the one I checked at archive.org, but I noted that it has no accessdate (!), so that should also be supplied when it is updated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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