Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boot Monument/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 15 December 2024 [1].

Boot Monument

edit
Nominator(s): ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a strange monument located in Saratoga National Historical Park, New York. It is shaped like a boot. However, the monument's honoree is never mentioned on the monument because his name was Benedict Arnold, someone who betrayed the Continental army to the British army. I've brought this article from Start-class to GA-class (review), and then had it reviewed for A-class, which it passed. I think that it's now ready for FAC. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Matarisvan

edit

I was a reviewer at the ACR and can support the article for promotion to FA class. I also did the source review and spot checks at the ACR which passed, I can do these again if needed. Matarisvan (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "continued to grow ever more bitter towards the Continental Army when he was passed over for promotion, lost his business, and he was court-martialed" => "continued to grow ever more bitter towards the Continental Army when he was passed over for promotion, lost his business, and was court-martialed"
  • Done
  • Link Arnold on first use in body
  • Linked in Background section; not sure if I need to link it elsewhere
  • "American Major General Benedict Arnold had contributed to both Battles of Saratoga" - can we get a bit more context around this? I doubt that almost anyone outside the United States has the faintest idea what/when the Battles of Saratoga were, so you need to explain that this occurred during the American Revolutionary War and potentially even add that this was fought between the Americans and British
  • "a writer of several military histories about the Battle of Saratoga" - singular? It was plural earlier
  • changed to "battles"
  • "the only monument in Saratoga National Park that does not say the name of its honoree" - as a monument can't speak I would suggest that "show the name" would be better
  • Done

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • "However, at the end of the conflict, Arnold's leg and horse were shot. When the horse fell, Arnold's leg shattered." This doesn't really make sense, it is given almost in bullet point. It needs unpacking a litle and expressing in full prose.
  • I tried changing it to "While fighting at the Battle of Bemis Heights, Arnold's left leg was severely injured after it had been shot and crushed by his horse, which had been hit by gunfire as well.". Let me know your thoughts.
How's about something like 'While fighting at the Battle of Bemis Heights, Arnold was shot and severely injured in his left leg. His horse was also hit by gunfire and fell on Arnold, crushing his already injured leg.'? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like it :). Done
  • "This contributed to Arnold's bitterness ... This along with the fact that his ..." Could we avoid two consequecutive sentences starting with "This"?
  • Both sentences changed
  • Also, suggest rephrasing the first 'Along with his combat wounds, business troubles, Congress having promoted some rival and younger generals ahead of him, and a court-martial which resulted in him being convicted of two minor charges of using his role as military commander of Philadelphia to make a profit, this being overlooked caused Arnold to develop a growing bitterness towards the revolutionary cause.' or similar.
  • Changed to "In addition, his combat wounds, business troubles, the promotion of rival and younger generals by Congress, and a court-martial conviction of two minor charges of profiting off of his military commander of Philadelphia role further angered Arnold.", although I'm not sure how I feel about it.
"in his report of the aftermath of the battle". Delete "of the aftermath", I assume the report was on the whole battle. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would 'which angered Arnold. In addition, his combat wounds, business troubles, the promotion of rival and younger generals by Congress, and a court-martial conviction of two minor charges of profiting off of his military commander of Philadelphia role further embittered him.' work better for you?
Better, yes. I've changed it.
  • "with Sir Henry Clinton finally offering". Introduce Clinton.
  • I added "British General." Hopefully that's enough...
  • "and remained as a general there until the war ended." Could we be told the year it ended?
  • Done

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In a Saratoga Monument Association (SMA) meeting in July of 1882". Introduce the SMA.
  • Done
  • "There were no objections to the stake." It is a little unclear by this.
  • Tried "No one at the meeting objected to the stake being placed"
  • "The monument underwent restoration after Adolph S. Ochs, publisher of The New York Times, financed it." Is it known when this restoration took place?
  • As I said above, unfortunately no. All of the sources that were used in that little section date from 1927-1931, but a specific date is never mentioned.
  • but it was later moved after further research as to where Arnold injured his leg, which was the more southern end of the main redoubt line." This is not clear and could probably be usefully rephrased.
  • Tried "The monument was originally located further to the north at the top of the hill at the Breymann Redoubt site, but after further research as to where Arnold injured his leg, the monument was moved further south to where the main fortifications of the redoubt were"
Suggest removing the second "further", but otherwise that looks good.
Removed
  • "Appearance" section. This should start with an overall description - not with the inscription. This could be resolved by swapping the first and second paragraphs of the section
  • Done
  • References: article titles should consistently be in title case, regardless of how they appear in their original.
  • Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I think I've addressed everything you've brought up above. Thank you for taking the time to review! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grand. A couple of come backs and suggestions above. If I don't respond to something it means I am content. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Addressed everything. Thanks again ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: pass

edit

I'll do this in a little bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few comments to start:

  • Aryes should be Ayres
  • Fixed
  • Ayres: I recommend replacing the url with this one that links directly to the book listing, rather than to a word search within the book.
  • Fixed
  • I can't find the Ayres book in WorldCat, but I can find a 2006 print book with a similar name by the same author. Is the 2008 e-book a less-distributed update on the 2006 print book?
  • Ducharme and Fine: the pages parameter should show the page numbering, not the number of pages. For this entry, it should be 1309–1331, not 23.
  • Fixed
  • Ducharme and Fine: Social Forces appears to be published in Chapel Hill, NC. Where did you find the publication place to be Athens, GA?
  • I believe that I had seen that Ducharme and Fine were both from the University of Georgia, and found that the university was located in Athens. Fixing now.
  • Duling: I recomment this url in place of the one the article currently uses, for the same reason as the one above for the Ayres book.
  • Fixed
  • Frothingham: This listing makes it seem like it is for an article called "The Turning Point of the Revolution" by Frothingham and and Nickerson, whereas it is a review by Frothingham of Nickerson's book The Turning Point of the Revolution. You should remove Nickerson as author of the article and change the article title to "Reviewed Work: The Turning Point of the Revolution Hoffman Nickerson". Also add the full page range.
  • I'm not sure how I messed this up, but this citation is for the actual book by Hoffman Nickerson. Oops. Hopefully I've fixed that accordingly.

I'll continue looking through the sources and add more comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few more:

  • Done
  • Lossing: add New York, New York as location of publication.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Lossing: the url goes to volume 2. If the citation is to that volume, then add the volume number to the works cited listing.
  • Added volume number
  • Lossing: In a works cited list otherwise entirely composed of publications from the 20th and 21st centuries, this work stands out. Is there not a newer work that can support the claim that Arnold fled to New York to join the British?
  • Yes, Philbrick's book works as well. Should I replace it?
Fixed
  • I recommend Wikilinking Savas Beatie. It's a redirect to the founder of the company, which is not the most helpful, but I suppose there's a possibility someone will convert that redirect into a real article someday.
  • Linked
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Citation 5 is Luzader 2008, p. 388–390 but should be "pp."
  • Fixed
  • Citation 14 is Randall 1990, pp. 448–540. Is that supposed to be 448–450? 122 pages is way too long a range for this citation to be useful.
  • I'd added the wrong pages anyways so I've fixed it now.
I've lost access to the book, but I'll message someone or ask at WP:TREX t. rex... :) to see if they know which pages that appears on specifically.
@Dugan Murphy: Done ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, but now there's no link to the actual document. Is that okay?
Thank you!

I'll add more later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the rest of my comments:

  • MOS:DATETIES tells me the date format for both the body and the citations should MDY instead of DMY. The exception listed there for articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military doesn't seem to apply well to a history marker commemorating an 18th-century figure.
  • I think I've now fixed all of the instances of dmy.
  • When using Template:Poem quote, don't use the source parameter for the citations. That parameter is for the name of the person being quoted, which the reader already knows is the monument. Instead, move the citations to the main body so they attach to the end of the inscription, rather than appear on a new line, preceded by an emdash.
  • Moved. Is that what you're looking for?
Thank you (again)
  • Watson: Add a publication place since this is not a super well-known publication.
  • Added
  • I recommend piping The Telegraph Wikilink so "(Nashua, New Hampshire)" doesn't show up in italics.
  • Done
  • "Find Clue to Missing Monument": Wikilink goes to wrong paper.
  • It does? For me it goes where it should. Where does it go for you?
Fixed
  • "May Find Toe of Only Statue to a Left Leg": Since there's no Wikilink for the newspaper, I recommend adding the publication city.
  • Done
  • Thompson: add publication date.
  • Done
  • Rather than including "(U.S. National Park Service)" in the web page title, you list National Park Service in the publisher parameter.
  • Done
  • "Digital Collections": It would be helpful to add New York State Archives using the publisher parameter. Also, capitalize "dedicated". Also, why is this the only web item without an archive link?
  • Added publisher, capitalized, and added archive link.
  • If The Washington Post is Wikilinked, so should The New York Times.
  • Linked
  • Coe: Capitalize the article title.
  • Done
  • I would say you should pipe The Evening Tribune Wikilink, but it goes to the wrong paper anyway. If there isn't a Wiki article for this paper, you should add Providence as the publication place.
  • Unlinked and added location
  • Duffus's initials appears to be R.I., not R.L.
  • Fixed
  • I'm of the opinion that information in the infobox shouldn't need citations because it should only summarize information that is already cited in the body. In that regard, I recommend adding to the body the monument's location within the historical park (that info seems to be indicated in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the History section, but it says it is in "Saratoga National Park", not Saratoga National Historical Park, as the lead and infobox indicate. Anyway, once that information is clearly indicated in the body, I think you can remove all citations from the infobox because all that info is already cited in the body.
  • Done

Summary: Everything in the works cited list are either books held by university libraries (with the semi-exception of Ayres, per comment above) or articles in academic journals. The inline citations includes a few other sources, which all seem reliable. There's an impressive breadth of scholarship and journalism represented in this article for how short it is. Earwig finds plagiarism unlikely. Most of the similarities it can find are quotes. Citations are consistently formatted with the exception of minor issues, outlined above. Overall, the sources look great and I think all the issues above are very fixable. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dugan Murphy: I think that I've addressed all of your concerns above, although I have a few questions about the comments you left about Leopold's source, Template:Poem quote, and "Find Clue to Missing Monument". This is a very impressive review and thank you for taking the time to do it! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm happy to see articles about esoteric history markers being improved. I've responded to a few things that still need work. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing a few more things. At this point, I think the only thing holding back this source review from passing is the Randall 1990 page range issue above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great work with this article, Relativity! I see no other issues holding back this source review from passing. I have an FAC nomination of my own that needs more attention. If you are able to take a look, I would appreciate it. You'll find it here. Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC - Support

edit

A marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The most accepted version of Arnold's contributions,[2] supported by Arnold biographer James Kirby Martin,[3] is that he led troops on the battlefield." The references here are in an odd position. Ref two is only supporting the first seven words of the sentence, while the final eight words are not supported by either of the citations that are supporting it. It would be better to move both to the end of the sentence where they will be supporting everything they need to.
  • Done
  • "Arnold to start making communications with": This is a bit clunky. Would "Arnold started to communicate with" be an improvement?
  • I'm not sure. It sounds a bit odd with the "caused" in front. I changed it to "caused Arnold to start communicating with" though— let me know your thoughts
  • "These troubles, along with the fact that his wife, Peggy Shippen, came from a family of Loyalists, caused Arnold to start making communications with the British army, with British general Sir Henry Clinton finally offering Arnold £20,000 (equivalent to £3,353,000 in 2023) for the capture of West Point,[11] a fortification that was important to the control of the Hudson River" This is a monster sentence of sixty words. There are a few places where it could be split in two, but I think that after "British army" would be the best place for a full stop.
  • Fixed
  • You have "British general" Clinton but "British Major" Andre – consistent formatting would be good
  • Fixed— capitalized "General"
  • "July of 1882": just "July 1882" would be more in line with the MOS
  • Fixed
  • Caption of "The Boot Monument from the back": "The reverse of the Boot Monument" may be a bit better?
  • Changed
  • "It never mentions Arnold": ->"It does not mention Arnold". Even better would be to reframe the whole sentence as "Because of Arnold's defection to the British it does not mention him by name"
  • Reframed
  • "(see damnatio memoriae)": Dropping a Latin tag, unexplained, in brackets into the prose isn't the best way to deal with it. Either inline ("in an example of damnatio memoriae—Latin for "condemnation of memory"—etc") or include as a footnote.
  • Additionally, if it's in Latin, you should use a ... template, which also has the benefit of italicising it
  • "Similarly to how Arnold's name does not appear on the Boot Monument because of his betrayal to the British side, the Saratoga" is a bit cumbersome and wordy: "As with the absence of Arnold's name from the Boot monument, the Saratoga" would be better for readers. Again, the two references are floating in the middle of the sentence, not supporting the final part of the sentence - probably best to move them to the end of the sentence.
  • Fixed

An interesting piece. I hope these help. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck

edit

Spot-checking this revision:

  • 6 Can't access this source, but going by commons:Template:PD-US-expired it should be out of copyright, which means that a) you might want to link to a free version, or as Google Books to make its version public and b) is it that good of a source if it's this old?
  • I linked to a different Google Books version, which has a free pdf of the book. On the age standpoint of the source, there are other sources in the article that are of a similar or slightly older age, so I'm hesitant to remove it, but I can probably replace it. Let me take a look...
  • So I've looked through many sources and I was unable to find a source that supports the fact that Gates' orders reached Arnold after the battle had ended.
Seems like the emailed version checks out.
  • I couldn't find a reliable source that said specifically that he was a major general of the New York State militia, so I altered the text slightly and supported it with a source that was already in use.
  • 20 Doesn't say that de Peyster was a historian.
  • Added source; see above
  • 22 OK
  • 23 OK
  • 25 Google Books supports most, save for 1975.
  • 26 Google Books supports.
  • 27 OK
  • 31 Partly supported by the Google Books snippet.
  • 32 OK
  • 35 OK
  • 37 Can't access this source.
  • 39 OK
  • 41 Is two-stars = major general?
  • The two-star part is actually supported by citation 42, so I moved citations 40 and 41 to where citation 42 is located. To answer your question, yes, two-star does mean major general, so I've clarified that.
  • 42 OK
  • 44 Can't access this source.
  • 47 Can't access this source.
  • 49 Can't access this source.

By the by, I don't think that the New York Times requires an ISSN.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relativity, Jo-Jo, two weeks on, what's the state of play? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild @Jo-Jo Eumerus I've sent all of the sources (Jo-Jo: I believe I also sent source 47 as well) except for source 10, but there's been a bit of a problem on my end regarding that source. I just got access to it again but there might be a discrepancy regarding the page numbers, which I'm trying to resolve. However, I plan to send that source in today. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All sources have been sent. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Marked most as done, but I don't think I got all sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I just sent you source 47. Am I missing any other sources that you need to access? ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, only two Google Books things that I can't verify. Remember that GBooks doesn't display the same thing to everyone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sent both GBooks sources. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for taking the time to do this! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KJP1

edit

First, apologies for coming late to the party. It's an interesting monument and an equally interesting article. On my read through, various questions do arise. I'll set these out fully over the next day or so, but as an initial aide memoire for me:

Lead
  • "the most brilliant soldier of the Continental Army" - as a point of interest, is this a view widely held by military historians, or just de Peyster's view? It's quite a claim. I'm no expert in the area, but doesn't Washington have some right to that title? Secondly, it's given in quotes in the inscription, which says it is a quote from someone. Do the sources say who?
  • This is de Peyster's view and is inscribed on the Boot Monument.
  • "Battles of Saratoga" - I did not know that these were two battles, neither called the Battle of Saratoga. If I understand it correctly, the first was the Battle of Freeman's Farm, and the second, the Battle of Bemis Heights. I therefore got confused between the first paragraph which talks of Saratoga, and the second which talks of Bemis Heights. Could this be unpacked a little? I know you do so in the Background section but would it be possible to have something in the lead? Perhaps - "While fighting at the Battle of Bemis Heights, the second of the Saratoga engagements..."
  • Done.
  • What about his leg? - The article isn't explicit as to whether or not Arnold lost his leg. Given the centrality of the leg to the monument, I think it would help to clarify this point. Our article on Arnold makes clear that he didn't, and that it was badly re-set.
  • Added
  • "passed over for promotion" - I struggled to reconcile this with the Background section, which says "not having been promoted by Congress", and the Appearance section which says "Arnold did not earn the rank of Major General after, and because of, Saratoga, but he became more senior than the other officers who had been promoted before him". Our Arnold article says "Congress restored Arnold's command seniority in response to his valor at Saratoga". I am confused as to whether he was promoted after Saratoga, or he wasn't. I'll come back to the sentence referenced in the Appearance section below as I find it confusing.
  • Yeah, this part can be a bit confusing. Basically, Congress had promoted a couple of other people to Major General before Arnold. Later, Congress promoted Arnold to Major General, but because those other generals had been promoted first, they still technically had a higher "rank" than Arnold did even though they were all Major Generals. There was no official change in Arnold's rank though. Should I clarify this?
  • "lost his business" - apologies if I've missed it, but I could find no reference to this intriguing point in the body of the article. Given that the lead is a summation of the body, I think this also requires a little expansion.
  • I had that in the body previously but had to reword it. I removed it from the lead.
Background
  • "both Battles of Saratoga, two crucial battles of the American Revolutionary War" - we have "battles" twice, separated by only four words. "engagements"/"conflicts"?
  • Good catch! I reworded it to "engagements"
  • "However" - you've two sentences beginning with this, and more elsewhere. Are they necessary?
  • They're not. I removed the "however". For some reason, I really like to start sentences with "however". However, I really shouldn't when it's not necessary.
  • False titles - I'm no expert on this, but "British General" / "British Major" jar slightly, as does the intro of "American Major General Benedict Arnold". Could they be rephrased? Perhaps - "The British commander-in-chief", assuming he was by that point / "a British officer"?
  • I reworded one of the instances of "British General", but I'm not sure how I can remove them without having that information clog up the text. I was also asked at the A-Class review to include specific ranks of people, so I don't think I can remove them entirely.
History
  • "The SMA...held a meeting in 1882" - given they were formed in 1859, possibly a little explanation as to what took them so long would be helpful.
  • Added explanation. Basically, they faced financial problems which delayed the construction of the Saratoga Battle Monument.
  • The stake story - this puzzled me as to its significance. Who put it there, and when? Did it bear Arnold's name? Does the fact that no one at the meeting objected to it matter? Is there anything more in the sources to enable expansion of this point?
  • The only thing that I could add from that source was that the stake was used as a historical marker, but there wasn't anything else in the source. I presume that the fact that no one objected to it at the meeting was in the source because Arnold was a traitor, and the reception of anything that acknowledged his contributions may not be so great.
  • "simply a slab of granite to commemorate Arnold" - did anyone actually suggest a "slab of granite"? And was this to bear his name?
  • The source says "standard granite slab", but what this means, I'm not entirely sure.
  • "However, the monument was still at the Breymann Redoubt before the time of its move and is still at the southern end of the redoubt" - aside from being another sentence beginning "However", what is this actually saying? "It was where it was and now it is where it is"?
  • Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. Removed the "however"
  • Arnold's toe - When did this occur; do the sources suggest whether it was a schoolboy prank or a political gesture; "they were only discovered" suggests the perpetrators were apprehended, were they or was it the absence of the toe that was discovered; and was the restoration solely to restore the appendage, or more?
  • As I've stated above, we don't know the date this happened. I added the fact that it was stolen as a souvenir, but otherwise none of the things you are asking about is ever mentioned in any of the sources.
Appearance
  • "One error in the inscription is that Arnold did not earn the rank of Major General after, and because of, Saratoga, but he became more senior than the other officers who had been promoted before him" - see Lead comment above. I'm afraid I just don't understand this sentence.
  • I responded to this above; let me know if anything changes.
  • Inscription - this also threw me. I think the first four lines are actually referring to Peyster, not to Arnold. Is it possible to make this clear? Looking at a blow-up of the inscription, is there a spacing between these lines and the rest? Also, is it possible to explain all the acronyms, perhaps in a footnote; "Brev: Maj: Gen: S.N.Y. 2nd V. Pres't Saratoga Mon't Ass't'n" - I can work them out but they aren't clear to any non-specialist.
  • Added footnote

I shall return to this tomorrow to tidy up. You may find it easier to wait until then, but feel free to respond now should you prefer. KJP1 (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. Hope the comments are helpful. Let me know if any clarifications are needed. KJP1 (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relativity have you noticed these comments? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have, and have responded to the first two sections. I think they will respond to the rest shortly. KJP1 (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will. Sorry, I've just been quite busy in real life. Hopefully I'll respond to some of these later today or tomorrow, ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've responded to everything. Please let me know if you have any other comments you'd like to add. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Shall go over these, either later today or tomorrow. KJP1 (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks indeed for the full responses. Am pleased to Support. There are a couple of areas where a bit more information would have been nice, but if it's not in the sources, it's not in the sources. If I have one remaining quibble, it's the concluding sentence of the History section. For me, it doesn't add anything. But it's not a deal-breaker, other reviewers didn't find it an issue, and if you want to keep it, so be it. Thanks for a very interesting read. KJP1 (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for adding your comments! They were helpful and really got me thinking. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 04:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Boot_Monument/archive1&oldid=1263316673"