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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Maile and Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

This article covers the war in 1835-1836 that led to Texas independence from Mexico. In one corner, we have a grandiose dictator, convinced his honor depends on wiping out American vermin, who tolerated no argument with his increasingly short-sighted decisions. In the other, a group of ill-disciplined volunteers - some of whom had been in Texas only five minutes - who couldn't agree on what they were fighting for or whether the orders their commanders issued really needed to be followed after all. The fact that today (March 2, 2015) we're celebrating the 179th anniversary of Texas independence is, quite frankly, a miracle.

We began work on this article after a WMF representative passed on a request by The History Channel for this article to be on the main page at the end of May, when their new miniseries Texas Rising premieres. While the History Channel's miniseries are known for their, ahem, loose relationship to actual events, we hope this article can clear up any misconceptions that viewers might have. Neither Maile nor I have had any contact with The History Channel reps - this is a topic we've long been interested in, and the request was simply a push for us to actually jump in.

Much thanks to iridescent, who provided significant feedback on the article before the rewrite, and to our peer reviewers/copyeditors Mike Christie and Dank. Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I was impressed with this at peer review, and everything I noted there has been fixed. It's good to see higher-level history articles getting brought to featured level. Very nice work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've reviewed the edits since the peer review. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very quick driveby comment (delegate, don't take this as a support or oppose); the Legacy section talks about English-speaking and Tejano perspectives on it, but doesn't mention how Mexican historians view it. (Per my comments a couple of months ago, the featured es:Independencia de Texas gives a very different weight to various parts of the story, most noticeably to the US eye only giving a couple of sentences to the Alamo, and this presumably reflects their sources). When I get the chance, I'll do a proper read-through and review of this finished version. – iridescent 13:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to find sources in English that discuss current Mexican perspectives on the war, although there is one note that Spanish-language sources also compare the Alamo to the Battle of Thermopolaye. I've found a few translations of Spanish essays by Josefina Vazquez (a university professor in Mexico), and they seem to approach the topic very similarly to the English-language sources. I'll keep looking for more coverage of that perspective in the English-language sources, but there's not much I can do if it isn't in English. Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the Spanish version of the article is featured; might be worth looking at that in Google translate to see if the perspective is different. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I see Iridescent already linked that. That'll teach me to post without reading the comments properly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Karanacs, Iridescent, Mike Christie, I just ran the WP Spanish through Google translator. The translation is located here: Talk:Texas Revolution/Google translation from WP Spanish version. — Maile (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• There was a talk page invitation at the WP Mexico, asking for input from that project when we knew this was coming up. You can find that post at this link. As far as I remember, nobody responded. — Maile (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, on the article's talk page, back in January we did solicit Mexico's viewpoint from a WP editor who lives in Mexico and is part of WP Project Mexico. His response is Here. — Maile (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Now having read through the (imperfect) Google translation, I think the basic story is the same. Some differences. Like our own article before Karanacs reworked it, Tejano participation in the revolution is missing. There is more emphasis on slavery being the cause of the revolution, and an emphasized POV that the revolution was instigated by interlopers from the USA. The Runaway Scrape is mentioned only in that Houston's motive was to pick his own terrain for the battle, and to disrupt the Mexican army's supply sources. They have Santa Anna burning Gonzales, when it was Houston who actually did that. And if Google Translate got it right, the Spanish language version says the Texian army went against Houston's authority to pursue Santa Anna. Their aftermath is not much, but doesn't contradict with what we have. I think the article we submit here with FA is a much more detailed, fleshed-out account of the same story. — Maile (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As previously discussed somewhere on the article's talkpage I still have one minor concern, that it doesn't (in my opinion) adequately discuss the difference between the pop-culture account everyone "knows" and the reality of what actually happened. (I was involved in the chains of events that led to the creation of Gunpowder Plot in popular culture and Michael Jackson's health and appearance, and know from bitter experience just how much hassle shooing away well-meaning "but it definitely happened this way, I saw it on TV" editors can be unless you either spell out exactly what John Wayne got wrong, or create a separate Texas Revolution in popular culture page to act as a heatsink for the people who've just seen the Billy-Bob Thornton movie and want to change the article to reflect it.) However this doesn't reflect on the existing article, the topic of which is Texas Revolution not Why so many American children are taught an incorrect version of the history of the Texas Revolution—it just means that I suspect it will be harder to keep stable—so isn't something over which to oppose. – iridescent 17:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arrggghhh! I have an ongoing first-hand experience of what you speak. In my case, it's Audie Murphy, everybody's an expert on that which they have not researched. Karanacs has touched on this misconception issue in the last paragraph of Legacy. Her writing is far above mine, so I'm not going to muck with her prose. And I'm not going to second-guess how she did any of it. But I can tell you first-hand that one of my earliest memories in life was being taken to the Cenotaph and being told about Bowie, Crockett and Travis, at least the version that never mentioned anyone of color. Any movie I saw, any book I read, only told a slightly different version of what Disney and John Wayne told us. Almost two centuries since the revolution of some fact interspersed with fiction, enough for a stand-alone article and then some. This is Karanacs' call if she wants to delve further into it in the article. — Maile (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added Historiography of the Texas Revolution to my to-do list. I'm hoping Legacy of the Battle of the Alamo, already linked in this article, will be enough to point people towards for now. The majority of the past pop culture coverage has focused on the Alamo, and not on the Texas Revolution as a whole, so we'll steer people over there. Karanacs (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• I believe the page number for footnote 41 "Davis (2006), pp. 206, 2011." is incorrect as the book only runs to about 370 pages. Should it perhaps be 201, 210 or 211 instead of 2011?
• Schoelwer, Susan Prendergast (1985) listed in the references appears not to be used in the article.
• "Stuart (2007), p. 84." should probably be changed to either Stuart (2008) or Reid (2007).

—P. S. Burton (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. Burton, I've fixed these three. Thank you so much for doing the final gnome-work on this article. I had checked it several times and embarrassed I missed to many of those details. Karanacs (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Karanacs. I guess it takes more than one pair of eyes to catch them all. On that note, there might still be something wrong with the Stuart ref. You now have two separate refs pointing to Stuart (2008), p. 84. But one of them have the ref name "stuart87". Perhaps either the page number is wrong or the two refs can be combined. P. S. Burton (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that one too :) Karanacs (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The article mixes "Mexican Army" and "Mexican army", as well as "Texian Army" and "Texian army". –P. S. Burton (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. [2] Karanacs (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• While almost all page numbers in the ref name parameter matches the cites pages rages, these do not, which makes me suspect some errors might have crept in: <ref name=lack45and57>Lack (1992), pp. 56–7.</ref>, <ref name="winders57">Winders (2004), p. 54.</ref>, <ref name=lack45and57>Lack (1992), pp. 56–7.</ref>, <ref name=hardin129>Hardin (1994), p. 128.</ref>, and <ref name=hardin192and3>Hardin (1994), pp. 190–3.</ref> Might be worth looking in to.
• The map in the background section appears to be correct, but there is no source for the information given in File:Mexico 1835-1846 administrative map-en-2.svg. Perhaps something could be added to the file description.

I think this is a excellent and very accessible account of the revoultion, however, as a European with hardly no prior knowledge of these events I have a few questions after reading trough the article.

• It might be worth noting if any other sources supports or disproves Reid's theory that Grant was a British secret agent.
• In this paragraph "Temperatures reached record lows, and by February 13 an estimated 15–16 inches (38–41 cm) of snow had fallen. A large number of the new recruits were from the tropical climate of the Yucatán, and some of them died of hypothermia." it is not immediately clear to the reader why specifically the recruits from the tropical climate died from hypothermia. Were they for example ill-dressed compared to the other troops?
• The second-to-last paragraph in the section "Goliad campaign" concerning the Texians' surrender is a bit hard to follow. First I thought all of them surrendered on March 20, but then the text talks about a second surrender two days later. Was it only Fannin who surrendered on March 20? If so perhaps that could be made more clear. P. S. Burton (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to who surrendered when, I added "with Fannin" after the Texians who surrendered on the 20th. It says earlier in that section that Ward's men were conducting raids on ranches, and Fannin had no word from them. Two different surrenders, Fannin and his men on the 20th, and Ward etal. on the 22nd.— Maile (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Those refs you pointed out are okay; I changed them recently and neglected to change the names.
• As for Grant and his purported British roots - Reid's work is fairly new (2007). Previous historians had not examined the British archives. The only more recent major look at the Matamoros Expedition, by Craig Roell in 2013, mentions Reid's conclusion, specifically attributing it to Reid, without passing judgment on whether or not the conclusion has merit. The Texas State Historical Association did hire Reid to write the Handbook of Texas online entry for Grant. Should I mention that in a note? Karanacs (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A believe a short note would be good. Either that or a mention of Reid's theory in Grant's article. –P. S. Burton (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Grant's article is actually on my list to rewrite. I've only gotten partway through that one. I added a note in this article that says "As of March 2015, no other historian has examined Reid's theory in detail. The Texas State Historical Association's article on Grant was written by Reid and includes mention of this theory." Karanacs (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources frequently mention the people from the Yucatan dying of hypothermia, but it never gives any more details than that. I assume they mean that those men were more susceptible to cold because they hadn't experienced much of it before, but that's just an assumption.
• RE the map: I don't know where the original creator got the data, but this is pretty standard stuff, so I added some example works. Karanacs (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the Yucatan recruits and hypothermia, I've added a few words and another source that explains that. They were unable to adjust to the freezing harsh winter. — Maile (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The article mixes "Battle of Xxx" and "battle of Xxx".

Fixed - this only happened with the Battle of San Jacinto in the lead. — Maile (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I double-checked; Battle is used only with titles of articles (or paintings) now. Karanacs (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The capitalisation of "constitution" appears to be inconsistent, for example "After adopting the constitution on March 17" and "In response, Burnet called for elections to ratify the Constitution and elect a Congress". –P. S. Burton (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When Constitution is capitalized, it is the specific name of the legal document, such as: "Constitution of 1824" and "1824 Constitution" used the same as "Constitution of the United States" and "United States Constitution". Otherwise, it is not proper to capitalize it. The capitalized example you state above has been changed to lower case. But I think the others are correct. — Maile (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• External links OK, no DABs.
• Images appropriately licensed. More Later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Santaanna1.JPG needs an author and a US PD tag
• File:SHouston.jpg needs a UD PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a PD-US tag to Houston, if that's the one you meant. — Maile (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikkimaria, I've replaced the image of Santa Anna with File:Antonio_Lopez_de_Santa_Anna_1852.jpg Karanacs (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And just to cover all bases, I added the PD-US tag on it. — Maile (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. After volunteering to help and forgetting to do so at every step in the process of making this article, I'm glad to offer my support for its promotion. Too bad this article didn't exist a couple years ago when I had to write a 2,000-4,000 word paper on the revolution. - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 00:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Image find FYI - Karanacs I have no experience at downloading on Commons, or whether or not you would want this. From the Library Congress, a depiction of Santa Anna and Cos surrendering to Houston. Published by Henry R. Robinson in 1836. Interesting, but biased. LOC item 2008661295 - Houston, Santa Anna and Cos. — Maile (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think this article is a fine achievement and am very glad that I took the time to read it. I only have a handful of near-pointless minor quibbles:

• "Santa Anna soon revealed himself to be a centralist, transitioning the Mexican government to a centralized government." - the dual "centralis*" grates a bit.
• "Santa Anna ordered his brother-in-law, General Martín Perfecto de Cos to lead 500 soldiers" - a missing parenthetical comma?
• Barr and Hardin are described within the same sentence as "historians" - is there a more interesting or informative way to do it? I wouldn't quibble with the description other than it is twice in the same sentence and thus a little ugly.
• "In this time period, captured pirates were executed immediately" - "time period" seems tautological, and it is not clear from the preceding sentence what this time period is.
• "to personally oversee". Even if we could turn a blind eye to the split infinitive, in the context of what the sentence as a whole tells us about Santa Anna's plans, "personally" seems redundant. [BTW there's another split infinitive later - "to eventually compensate"]
• When did Houston get shot? In, or after, the Battle of San Jacinto? If it was in the battle, it seems odd not to mention it in the section on the battle, which talks about Houston.
• The "Foreign relations" section is a bit choppy in the way that it refers to countries: The United States becomes the U.S. and then the United States again; the Republic of Texas becomes "the fledgling republic" but then back to The Republic of Texas in the following sentence; then we have "British policy", "Great Britain" (which doesn't really work with "themselves") and "Britain". I'd just suggest making sure the section flows with its use of short-hand expressions. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies . Mkativerata, for not returning for so long. Your points in order:

• I agree that this is clunky, but I was asked by another reviewer to clarify what centralist meant, and this was the least clunky way I could come up with.
• fixed
• I'm stumped on how better to word this. Maile???

• Quick fix done: Texas Tech professor emeritus Alwyn Barr; Texas history expert Stephen Hardin — Maile (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• changed to "in the early nineteenth century"
• Great point. Modified sentence in battle section to read: "Eleven Texians died, with 30 others, including Houston, wounded"
• I did a little ce, as seen here [3]

Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I stumbled here from my own FAC and wanted to give it a read :)

• "Despite a decade of political and cultural clashes between the Mexican government and the increasingly large population of American settlers in Texas, when hostilities erupted, Texians (English-speaking settlers) disagreed on whether the ultimate goal was independence or a return to the Mexican Constitution of 1824." - for the second sentence of the article, I think this could be simpler. For example - "After a decade of political and cultural clashes between the Mexican government and the increasingly large population of American settlers in Texas, hostilities began due to [X]. However, Texians (English-speaking settlers) disagreed on whether the ultimate goal was independence or a return to the Mexican Constitution of 1824."

I see where you are coming from here. I chose to word it as it is because I couldn't figure out a good way to fill in X. We could say they began because the army asked for the return of the cannon, or because Santa Anna moved the country away from federalism, or because Mexico tried to tax the people (all are accurate). I didn't want to get into too many details in the lead, but I can be convinced otherwise if someone can help me figure out an appropriate way to be accurate and concise. Karanacs (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even something as simple as "After a decade of political and cultural clashes, hostilities began in October 1835 between the Mexican government and the increasingly large population of American settlers in Texas." I feel something different is needed for the second sentence of the article to help set the reader in the right direction. I didn't get even a decent understanding of the article until I read the whole thing, so I think the lead could be summarized just a bit differently. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed as you suggested. — Maile (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• " As delegates at the Consultation (provisional government) debated the war's motives" - the word "as" can be ambiguous. When I started reading the sentence, it was unclear whether it meant "because" or "while", so you should clarify and make it the latter.

Changed to "While". — Maile (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Texians and a flood of volunteers" - I think that is a bit too colloquial. Why not "group"?

IMO, it was an onslaught from more than one geographical area. In many ways, it was the "cause of the moment" phenomenon that inspired a lot of volunteers. Kentucky-Ohio alone trained volunteers and had two cannons specially made to donate to the cause. "group" makes it sound like a small handful of one unit. — Maile (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that group sounds like a cohesive set. I considered "horde", but then they sound even more like barbarians ;) I could live with surge or swarm, but I'm not sure if either of those address the tone issue. What do you think? Karanacs (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think "surge" perfectly captures the moment. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This could be dumb, but perhaps mention that Texas became a U.S. state in the last sentence of the lead? That was the ultimate outcome of this revolution, after all. Ending with the US-Mexican war seems unnecessarily suspenseful IMO.

That last sentence "The annexation of Texas by the United States in 1845 led directly to the Mexican–American War." means that. But I added in both the body and the last sentence of the lead "as the 28th state". — Maile (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "After months of grumbling by Tejanos..." - again, this could use stronger wording. Why not - "After months of dissatisfaction by Tejanos..."?

"Months of dissatisfaction" sounds really awkward to me. The "grumbling" is accurate - there was a lot of talk, but that was all that was going on. The Tejanos had no real political power and didn't do much else but complain. Karanacs (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just felt like "grumble" wasn't ideal for formal writing, but if you think it's fine, I won't complain. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "which made it extremely vulnerable to attacks by native tribes and by American filibusters" - get rid of the second "by"

Fixed. — Maile (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Most of the immigrants came from the southern United States" - perhaps it should be southeastern United States? Your call though. It was just an immediate thought that "southern" is ambiguous and currently goes from California to Florida.

Southern United States does not traditionally include anything west of Texas. And during that time period, California, New Mexico and Arizona were part of Mexico. — Maile (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "further from the influence of the Mexican army" - this should be "farther", as it refers to distance. Ditto later with "The further the army retreated,"

If I'm reading it correctly, Merriam Webster says the two are interchangeable when referring to distance. (I'm glad I looked it up, because I learned something reading that.) Karanacs (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably because of people misusing it for years :P Grammar girl backs up that "farther" is always used for distance, as it has the word "far" in it, while "further" is for figurative distance. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure who made it, but File:Mexico 1835-1846 administrative map-en-2.svg has a grammar error. When it mentions Yucatan being independent, it should say "from 1841..."

I didn't make the image, but I'm pretty sure "from" was left out as a formatting decision. Otherwise that line of text will wrap, and it won't look right. I think it's an acceptable shorthand to omit the from. Karanacs (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Several years before" - poor way to start an entire section. You should say "Several years before the revolution" or something.

Changed to "In the early 1830s, the army loaned ". You're right - we needed to be more precise. I'm not sure whether it happened in 1832 or 1833, which is why I wasn't even more precise than that. Karanacs (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "commander of all Mexican troops in Texas, sent a small detachment of troops" - any way you could avoid having "troops" twice? Could the first one be "military"?

Changed the first one to "military forces". — Maile (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Grant and between 26 and 53 others roamed in the area between the Nueces River and Matamoros" - I would put "...and 26–53 others roamed the area", cutting "in" and making it a dash. That would make it easier to read IMO.

I like that. Fixed. Karanacs (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Just after 11 p.m. on March 13" - local time?

History of time in the United States, time was all a local matter before 1883— Maile (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, a really good read! I was pleasantly surprised by the history of the revolution. The prose was concise and logical. I'll happily support with a bit more work. Cheers, ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes, but left the rest up to Karanacs. I prefer not to second-guess her reasoning. — Maile (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes! They work for me. Karanacs, lemme know when you reply to the other things. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, hurricanehink, for the delay (and nice to see you again!). I added a few responses above. Thanks for helping us make the article better!! Karanacs (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I'll be happy to support once the 2nd sentence of the lead is changed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink, the second sentence of the lead has been changed as you requested. — Maile (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support now, with the caveat that I split that 2nd lead sentence (wasn't sure if there was an error there or not). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I refined the second sentence to "After a decade of political and cultural clashes between the Mexican government and the increasingly large population of American settlers in Texas, hostilities erupted in October 1835." Karanacs (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN155: page formatting
• Location for Calore? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the location for Calore. I don't understand what you mean by the page formatting on FN155. — Maile (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page range, so "pp.", not "p." -- dealt with. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did spotchecks on Vazquez 1985 and Graham, and all checks out. I'm satisfied, but if more is required, I think I have the Henderson book at home. If the delegates want it, I could do further checks this weekend. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given what you've done came back clean, I think we'll call time on the spotcheck, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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