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 Karanacs 16:56, 30 June 2009 [1].

Oklahoma City bombing[edit]

Nominator(s): Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I have been working on this article for several years now, helping it to reach GA in 2007. One of my long-term goals here is to get this article up to featured status (I even brought it up at my RfA!). I have pursued hundreds of sources to expand and reference the article's content, even purchasing books to learn more about the topic. After improving the article by going through a peer review and having several people copyedit it, I believe the article meets the criteria. I look forward to addressing all suggestions for improvement. Happy reviewing! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

those work. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, I appreciate it. I was glad I didn't have too many issues with the sources, and I'll get to adding those book pages. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a very engaging contribution. I look forward to adding my support. Graham Colm Talk 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article. A lot of these were very helpful, and definitely helped to improve the prose for clarifying some details. I appreciate you taking the time to look the article over. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome. Graham Colm Talk 00:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for fair use image concerns as follow:

Other Images are verifiably in public domain or appropriately licensed, or qualifies for fair use with the rationales provided. Jappalang (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the images (as well as prior to FAC), and I'm glad that the majority of the images are free. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I feel the "See also" section is indiscriminate in its links. What similar circumstances or causes did Bath School disaster and 1993 Bishopsgate bombing have with the Oklahoma City bombing? What has structural failure and collapse (List of structural failures and collapses) got to do with the bombed building (which did not collapse)? Generally, if those links in "See also" are of value to the subject, then they could be placed in relevant sections with ((See also)) or ((Further)) (WP:HATNOTE), or worked as links into the article itself. If they are to be retained, at least give a brief explanation of relevance per WP:SEEALSO. Jappalang (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the majority of the links only leaving List of terrorist incidents and Lone wolf (terrorism). The other single events are likely covered in these links (and other links in the article) if the readers want to pursue further information. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Just trying to help out, what harm is there in fixing them? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 00:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing the problem links out. I am going to assume good faith on the request for comments on the other FAC, which is what I found objectionable, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter who last checked the links or when, how am I supposed to check the sources when the links are not working? I would be remiss if I didn't check whether the facts are supported by the sources. As far as requesting comments, I'd like to think that most of us here are impartial enough to evaluate an article based on the facts, not based whether or not someone is our friend, or whether they supported our FAC... that may make me naive but it is common practice for editors to request comments from interested parties, at least I'm being transparent about it. Moving on...

Haven't had time to read the whole thing yet, but these are the issues I have so far. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 14:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These two statements are the ends of paragraphs lacking a citation. There were others, but they were ok, IMO, as one was basically a recap of the sections below it, and another was geographic claim which could be verified by looking at a non-specialized map. But citing the latter wouldn't hurt. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wrestlinglover
Resolved comments from Wrestlinglover
  • Stay tuned for comments. I've been planning to review this since it was nominated and had it on my watchlist. Been too busy to or just not in the mood. As long as nothing comes up today I'll review it. Something I've been wanting to learn about so expect a review, but no telling what could stop me.--WillC 19:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I don't review articles much. So in the cases I do, I try to be very hard on the article to make sure it is the best it can be. I at one point was too lenient on articles, including ones I've written, when it came to certain sentences not reading well, etc. So since I would actually like to see this article become an FA, I'm going to be as hard as I can to make sure it passes the criteria to the letter. I will only vote support if I feel it does. If not, then sorry.--WillC 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually prefer these types of reviews as I would like the article to be as informative and accurate as possible. You're not going to hurt my feelings, and hopefully I address the points you raise. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise.--WillC 05:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
    • The opening does not roll off the tongue to me. "The Oklahoma City bombing of April 19, 1995, carried out by American militia movement sympathizer Timothy McVeigh with the assistance of Terry Nichols, destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City, Oklahoma." The sentence being spilt doesn't help. Hard to describe what I see wrong, and that will come up a lot during my review. But IMO I believe it would be better written as such: "The '''Oklahoma City bombing''' occurred on April 19, 1995 when American [[militia movement]] sympathizer [[Timothy McVeigh]] with the assistance of [[Terry Nichols]] destroyed the [[Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building]] in [[Downtown Oklahoma City|downtown]] [[Oklahoma City|Oklahoma City, Oklahoma]]." or "The '''Oklahoma City bombing''' occurred on Wednesday April 19, 1995 at 9:02 a.m when American [[militia movement]] sympathizer [[Timothy McVeigh]] with the assistance of [[Terry Nichols]] destroyed the [[Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building]] in [[Downtown Oklahoma City|downtown]] [[Oklahoma City|Oklahoma City, Oklahoma]]."--WillC 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I reworded it to the second alternative listed, with some minor changes. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks good.--WillC 05:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a big deal but add "individuals" at the end of this: "It was the most significant act of terrorism on American soil until the September 11 attacks in 2001, claiming the lives of 168 victims and injuring more than 680." Also do you have a source for this statement? I would add the word but thought to let you do it since you may have a problem with it. If you don't have a source that is alright. I can see it is true, though you have a few in-line citations in the lead, but not one for this statement. I feel it should have one.--WillC 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think that "individuals" is necessary. The injured would still be considered victims and I think it would be redundant to reword otherwise. Sources were added for the death toll and injury count. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, it just kind of read weird to me. But that is fine.--WillC 05:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Michael and Lori Fortier were shortly afterwards identified as accomplices." → "Michael and Lori Fortier were later identified as accomplices." Flows better.--WillC 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks good.--WillC 05:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe the conspiracy theories statement is really needed in the lead, but that is just my opinion. As long as it is mentioned later on in the article, I feel it would be better to just remove it, unless you feel otherwise.--WillC 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      To best summarize the article, I think the sentence should remain. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough.--WillC 05:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a few template questions. As you can tell by my user name I like wrestling, and in that project we only use dates in parenthesis as a disambiguity in titles. This one has no reason to my knowledge to need to differ itself from another article. So in that thought, why does the template have "(1995)" in the title section? Maybe a dumb question, but one that I've been wondering about. Another is: The lead says that Michael and Lori Fortier were accomplices, but in the perpetrator section, they aren't listed. Maybe you can clear up the reason why.--WillC 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      That's something I've never noticed (don't know if I was the one that added it or not), but I removed it. The perpetrators field is for the people that committed the crime. The Fortiers did not help plan the bombing or build the bomb, and as a result should not be listed in that section. They were considered accomplices for knowing about the bombing in advance and for not warning the authorities. I added additional details throughout the article about the couple. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, fair enough. Was wondering. Wasn't sure how much they knew or did.--WillC 05:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prelude
  • Planning
    • "Waco Siege, a 1993 51-day standoff between the FBI and Branch Davidian members which ended with the deaths of David Koresh and 75 others." Instead of a comma after Waco Siege use an em dash. I believe that would be better suited. I may be wrong, but then again my opinion. Incase you don't know the code, since at points I forget it, then here: &m dash; (remove the dash). Also speaking, well writing, of em dashes. I was contemplating the idea of changing the commas to em dashes when you mention McVeigh and Nichols in the opening sentence. It would look like this: "The chief conspirators—Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols—met in 1988 at Fort Benning during basic training for the U.S. Army." --WillC 05:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I added the dash after the Waco siege. I'm more of a comma guy (see the rest of the article) instead of using dashes, so I think that the conspirators clause should remain as is. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, cool.--WillC 06:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The bombing was planned over several years" Okay he started planning the bombing after the siege was over. So that is at most 2 years. That isn't several. Would be best to just remove that part of the entire sentence or rewrite it. --WillC 05:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I removed the first part of the sentence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, cool.--WillC 06:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and ignited the devices with Nichols outside Nichols' home in Herington, Kansas." The word ignited makes it sound like that were detonated then. If this isn't the case, which I don't believe it is or I just misread the statement, then it would be best to find a better term for their activities.--WillC 05:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The devices were detonated next to Nichols' house. I believe they were learning how to use explosives themselves (outside of the military) and were testing it there. I don't know how it should be reworded further. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, cool. The rest is fine. I'll finish the review tomorrow. I need to get some sleep.--WillC 06:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target selection
    • Change "McVeigh initially intended only to destroy a federal building, but he later decided that his message would be better received if many people also died" to one of the following: "McVeigh initially intended only to destroy a federal building, but he later decided that his message would be better received if several people were murdered.", "McVeigh initially intended only to destroy a federal building, but he later decided that his message would be better received if several people were killer.", "McVeigh initially intended only to destroy a federal building, but he later decided that his message would be better received if several people died.", or "McVeigh initially intended only to destroy a federal building, but he later decided that his message would be better received if there human casualties." Preferably the last one.--WillC 13:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Reworded the statement. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The nine-story building, built in 1977, was named for a federal judge and housed fourteen federal agencies." I don't believe the year it was built is important at this point. Unless that was apart of their final decision. I would change the sentence to "The nine-story building was named after federal judge Alfred P. Murrah and housed fourteen federal agencies." Plus link federal agencies to an appropriate article, if there is one of course.--WillC 13:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I see no harm in including the year. It may provide some perspective to the reader who may want to know if it was a recently built building or if it was perhaps one of the first buildings in the city. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, good point.--WillC 18:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • English was never my best subject in school, yeah irony is weird, but I do not believe the comma is needed here: "occupants of nearby, non-federal buildings". I may be mistaken. But it is worth bringing up.--WillC 13:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Comma removed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In addition, McVeigh believed that the open space around the building would provide better photo opportunities for propaganda purposes." Maybe you can go more into detail on the propaganda purposes. If you can that is.--WillC 13:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      There was no additional information in the source. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, it is fine then.--WillC 18:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early preparations
    • "Nichols and McVeigh stole blasting caps and liquid nitromethane, which they stored in rented sheds." Alphabet comes into play here. M comes before N, so switch to "McVeigh and Nichols stole blasting caps..." Plus can you add a citation for this statement? --WillC 14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Fixed. The sentence is an introductory sentence for the section so I don't think it needs a cite. I reworded it anyways to introduce the section better. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, good point.--WillC 18:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "$60,000 worth of guns, gold, silver, and jewels, removing the property in his own van" → "$60,000 worth of guns, gold, silver, and jewels by removing the property in his own van"--WillC 14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I reworded the sentence to mention that it took place in his home. The materials were transported in Moore's van. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Doubts have been raised about Nichols and McVeigh's involvement in the robbery, because despite McVeigh previously visiting Moore's ranch, the robbers were said to be wearing ski masks (making a positive identification impossible) and the physical description given did not match Nichols" → "Doubts have been raised about McVeigh and Nichols' involvement in the robbery, because despite McVeigh previously visiting Moore's ranch, the robbers were said to be wearing ski masks, thus making a positive identification impossible, and the physical description given did not match McVeigh nor Nichols."--WillC 14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      That sentence seems a little long with that many clauses. I slightly reworded the sentence though. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "All told, the truck rental cost about $250, the fertilizer less than $500, and the nitromethane $2,780, with a cheap car being used as a getaway vehicle." → "In all, the truck rental cost about $250, the fertilizer less than $500, and the nitromethane $2,780, with a cheap car being used as a getaway vehicle." The all told may be a typo IDK. But doesn't help.--WillC 14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "McVeigh wrote a letter to Moore in which he claimed that the robbery had been committed by government agents" → "After the robbery, McVeigh wrote a letter to Moore in which he claimed that it had been committed by government agents."
      I think it is already established that he would write the letter after the robbery took place. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Well the above statement I wrote isn't about stating it was after, mainly about making it flow with the surrounding statements and sound well.--WillC 18:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "500 electric blasting caps McVeigh and Nichols had stolen from a Martin Marietta Aggregates quarry in Marion, Kansas." → "500 electric blasting caps, which he and Nichols had stolen from a Martin Marietta Aggregates quarry in Marion, Kansas."--WillC 14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The prototype was detonated in the desert to avoid detection." Do you have any information regarding the results? I feel they would be interesting notes if you did.--WillC 14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The prototype was only a small bomb so it was nowhere near the size of the one used in the bombing. I don't believe that the source elaborated beyond the fact that it was tested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, I kind of figured it was small. Just thought it would be a bonus to the article. But that is okay.--WillC 18:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I love the direct quotes. They really add something to the article and you slowly begin to understand his mindset. Also, you should link Evil Empire to Galactic Empire (Star Wars).--WillC 14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikilink added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After removing the license plate from the car," → "After removing the license plate from the truck," I know technically the samething but a car is a car and a truck is a truck.--WillC 14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      It's referring to the getaway car. I reworded getaway vehicle to car from a few sentences prior to this one. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      My bad, I misunderstood then.--WillC 18:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Klingon warriors of Star Trek." → "Klingon warriors of the Star Trek media franchise."--WillC 14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "camera recorded images of Nichols' truck as it drove to the federal building" It says McVeigh rented the truck. But here it says that it is Nichols'. I would change it to either one: "camera recorded images of McVeigh's truck as it drove to the federal building" or "camera recorded images of the Ryder truck as it drove to the federal building".--WillC 14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Reworded as it was Nichols' pickup truck when they went to drop off the getaway car. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      My bad, I misunderstood then. I thought it was the ryder truck.--WillC 18:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Building the bomb
    • "On April 17 and 18" → On April 17–18
      Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delink nitromethane. Been linked before and mentioned many many times already.
      Since this section details all of the materials used in the manufacturing of the bomb, I think it should remain linked. Readers may jump to this section and not now what nitromethane is. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Good point, very good point.--WillC 18:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Two holes were drilled in the cab of the truck and under the seat; two holes were drilled in the van of the truck." This is an odd sentence. First it feels incomplete. Second it makes it sound like four holes were drilled in the cap. I would change it to: "McVeigh and Nichols drilled two holes in the cab of the truck under the seat, while two holes were also drilled in the van of the truck."--WillC 15:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "through plastic fish-tank tubing conduit (painted yellow to blend in with the truck, and duct-taped in place to the wall to make them harder to disable by yanking from the outside),[47] to two sets of non-electric blasting caps." → "through a plastic fish-tank tubing conduit—painted yellow to blend in with the truck, and duct-taped in place to the wall to make them harder to disable by yanking from the outside—to two sets of non-electric blasting caps.[47]" Best for such a long sentence that is borderline run-on.--WillC 15:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I split the statement into two sentences. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After finishing the truck bomb, the two men separated; Nichols returned to Herington and McVeigh to Junction City." → "After finishing the truck bomb, the two men separated; Nichols attempting to returned to Herington and McVeigh attempting to return to Junction City." I know Tim didn't make it home. So this sentence makes it sound like he got away. Not sure about Nichols though.--WillC 15:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The bomb making took place on April 18. Nichols did return home. McVeigh went to Junction City where he stayed at a motel before driving to Oklahoma City the next morning. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      My bad, I misunderstood again. Maybe you should go into more detail, just in case I'm not the only one who reads it and does not understand fully.--WillC 18:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Clarified a bit more. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bombing
    • "The Turner Diaries, a fictional account of modern-day revolutionary activists who rise up against the government and create a full-scale race war." I feel it should be an emdash instead of a comma, but your choice. Or maybe a colon but I forget how to use certain punctuation marks, so that may be incorrect in this case.
      Changed to emdash. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "which had recorded Nichols' truck three days earlier" There is either alot of contradictions or I'm not understanding alot of things. Shouldn't it be "which had recorded McVeigh's truck three days earlier" or "which had recorded the Ryder truck three days earlier"?
      I clarified this above and in the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Also at 8:57 a.m." → "At 8:57 a.m."
      Also is used due to it occurring at the same time as when the truck was captured on camera. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      True, but it makes the sentence sound wordy and not straight forward in my interpretation.--WillC 18:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think an additional word would make it sound wordy, and I'd rather it not sound redundant with the prior sentence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "buildings (the broken glass alone accounted for 5% of the death total and 69% of the injuries outside the Murrah Federal Building)." I feel instead of parenthesis you should place a semi-colon after buildings. That may be incorrect according to the subject of grammar, but I don't know. I'm throwing thoughts out there. Your choice.
      I just made it a new sentence since the pre-existing sentence had a lot of content for the reader to absorb. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I love the richter scale note.--WillC 16:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      It's surprising how far away the explosion was felt. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, it is.--WillC 18:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arrests
Casualties
Response and relief
Trials and sentencing of the conspirators
Legacy
Memorial observances
Conspiracy theories
See also
References
Further reading
External links

Support You can literally see that years of work and gradual improvement has gone into this article and evidence of wide reading on the topic which all featured article should have. This is a very informative and detailed article which covers all the aspects of the event. Nice work! Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:20, 28 June 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.
More