User talk:MapReader

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

AJM's advice to new editors[edit]

  • Look at the article to see how it is laid out. The Table of Contents is the best place to start.
  • Read the article to see if what you want to add or remove is appropriate, necessary, or adds value.
  • Search for the right place to put it.
  • Check Use the "Show Preview" to make sure that what you have done is appropriate and correct.
  • Discuss any change about which you are uncertain, by placing your proposed text, or just a suggestion, on the talk page. Someone who watches the article will usually answer in a day or so. You can monitor this by clicking the watch tag at the top of the page.
  • Be aware
    • that an addition inserted between two sentences or paragraphs that are linked in meaning can turn the existent paragraphs into nonsense.
    • that a lengthy addition or the creation of a new sub-section can add inappropriate weight to just one aspect of a topic.

When adding images

  • Look to see if the subject of your image is already covered. Don't duplicate subject matter already present. Don't delete a picture just to put in your own, unless your picture is demonstrably better for the purpose. The caption and nearby text will help you decide this.
  • Search through the text to find the right place for your image. If you wish it to appear adjacent to a particular body of text, then place it above the text, not at the end of it.
  • Look to see how the pictures are formatted. If they are all small thumbnails, do not size your picture at 300 px. The pictures in the article may have been carefully selected to follow a certain visual style e.g. every picture may be horizontal, because of restricted space; every picture might be taken from a certain source, so they all match. Make sure your picture looks appropriate in the context of the article.
  • Read the captions of existent pictures, to see how yours should fit in.
  • Check the formatting, placement, context and caption before you leave the page by using the Show preview function, and again after saving.
  • Discuss If your picture seems to fill a real identifiable need in the article, but doesn't fit well, because of fo,rmatting or some other constraint, then put it on the talk page and discuss, before adding.
  • Be aware that adding a picture may substantially change the layout of the article. Your addition may push another picture out of its relevant section or cause some other formatting problem.
  • Edit before adding. Some pictures will look much better, or fit an article more appropriately if they are cropped to show the relevant subject.

Amandajm (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Good editing is saying the same thing in fewer words (Ed.)...

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo
Hello! MapReader, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!

I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks so much for your hard work on the 2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony article. I was thrilled to see the article was promoted to Good status! Another Believer (Talk) 19:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
P seedling grey.svg AB Award!
In appreciation of your contributions to Wikipedia, I hereby present you with the AB Award. By promoting one of these stubs, which I like to think of as seeds, you have improved this wonderful collaborative project. Thank you, and keep up the great work! Another Believer (Talk) 19:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


It does appear that the warning I put on your talk page was unjustified. Apologies and retractions. Dkendr (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


For being understanding. And I have to compliment you as well — you made excellent edit to my shortened version! Always glad to run across another conscientious editor. I hope to see you around Wikipedia more often! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings![edit]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
(Notification per WP:CAN.)

Deletion of paragraph at Stalag Luft III[edit]

The paragraph in question was not an "addition" by me. It was previously in the section "Notable prisoners". As part of a major cleanup I moved it to "Survivors" – after using Google to quickly verify that the general discussion re Cameron was not totally fictitious. (My logic being that a section like "Notable prisoners" would usually be about people who were notable for reasons other than their time at Stalag Luft III.)

Anyway, I think a better course of action that deleting the whole par would be the addition of "citation needed" tags? Grant | Talk 09:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Name edits[edit]

Hi, I've noticed you've been coming in after my edits on election results and making some edits to names. While on the whole I agree the common name should be used, I believe where a candidate is redlinked their full name should be used, as there is no page to provide that further information as of yet. This will help any editor who does decide to create that page from the redlink. --JMPhillips92 (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, you appear to be working through a list of both current and historic constituencies, which I haven't yet found. Since I was just addressing format and not even reviewing your edits, let alone seeking to change them, I had hoped that you wouldn't mind my using your edit history as a handy list. If you do mind, I am happy to find another list, although I am nearly done in any case. Regarding red links, have you looked at the policy within WP:Redyes? The red links are supposed to be to article titles, the one that would be appropriate when article is created down the line. Using the entire full name for a red link would not be compliant. It also risks - as I have found a few times now - creating a red link to someone's full name when the individual already has a WP article more appropriately titled under their Commonname, which is usually how WP articles are titled. Worst case this could lead to having two articles about the same person. Taking Redyes and Commonname together, I do not believe it would be appropriate to run with your suggestion. If there is additional biographical information that needs to be retained, surely the better path is to create a stub page? Season's Greetings! MapReader (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I've been working my way back through the elections, decade by decade, so am currently using List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1874, if that helps. I'll then move on to the 1860s using the 1868 list. I understand that, but would use a piped link to include a common name red link with the full name displayed. However, perhaps the stub page route is better. Thanks very much and season's greetings to you too! --JMPhillips92 (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

A hotel[edit]

Hi Mapreader, in response to your comment at WT:MOS#An historic, I also use "a hotel" as you do. But I was just curious in what part of the world "hotel" is stressed on the first syllable? I've never heard that before. Mathglot (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pumi dog[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pumi dog you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sagaciousphil -- Sagaciousphil (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

First paragraph of plot summary[edit]

Thanks for your edits at Arrival. The film makes a notable distinction in its narrative between premonition time and the depicted time of events as they transpire. The preamble to the film is the fulfillment of one of her premonitions of the death of her child, which is unknown to the film watching audience as being a premonition until the film develops further. Since Wikipedia does not protect spoilers, this information about the fulfillment of the premonition should be included in some way in the first paragraph of the plot summary as useful to readers. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue is not spoilers. The plot section of a WP article should set out what happens, rather than any individual editor's interpretation, which would be WP:OR. Your "premonition dating back several years" is both a contradiction and an assumption. There is nothing in the introductory sequence that indicates it is a premonition; indeed the actor's voiceover suggests it is a retrospective. And the remaining parts of your edit were unnecessary. What is really needed is a return to the An introductory sequence.. formulation of the article, which had the advantage of avoiding edits that attempt to impose their own interpretation of events, as did yours. MapReader (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
There is no WP:OR in the edit I have placed. You appear to be stating that the film makes no distinction between premonition time and the depicted time of events as they transpire during the larger portion of the film. Her premonition of the death of her child frames the entire film, the very start of the film and the very end of the film, and it would be useful to included this in the first paragraph of the plot summary. There is no WP:OR in this edit. Her premonitions are a part of the film. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
The premonitions are certainly part of the film. But the introductory sequence isn't necessarily one of them; that is simply your assumption. Stick to describing what happens on screen.MapReader (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
You are listed as the top editor of this article and it is significant to know that this is not my assumption but a part of the film as made by the director. The death of her child frames the entire film at the very start and at the very end. Her premonition is that she will marry her co-worker, that they will have a child, that their child will die, and that he will leave her. You appear to be protecting this as a spoiler to the film which is against WP:Spoiler policy, which does not recognize the protection of spoilers on Wikipedia. Use your own words to describe the premonition's importance to the event of the death of the child and to the film as a whole in the first paragraph of the plot section if you do not feel my version was accurate. It was the director's choice to edit in the premonition of the death of the child as the first scene of the film and not my assumption. It is the director's choice to present the fulfilled premonition as being the first scene of the film. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
All true, except for the statement that it was a premonition, which is your personal conclusion. The voiceover suggests that it was a retrospective, narrated after all the events of the film had taken place. My view is that the premonitions don't start until later in the film, once she starts working on the alien language. In any event, anything that needs to be debated isn't storyline but OR. MapReader (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I've just noticed that you did adapt the language there just now which is useful. I meant to write 'fulfilled premonition' above but you understood my meaning. Your comment above that 'once she starts working on the alien language' is more strongly stated here than in the plot summary and it would be nice if you could use something like your wording here in the article itself. Its not OR to include this since her study of the alien language appears to be directly related to her starting to experience the premonitions. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely. The key point here is, however, that the film doesn't (in my view) start with a premonition. Hence the problem with your original edit. The problem with your suggestion, however, is that you are not following the storyline, which doesn't 'reveal' that the child sequences mid-film are premonitions until near the end. Certainly WP should not exclude spoilers from the plot, but neither should 'explanations' be inserted earlier into a storyline than they emerge in the actual film. MapReader (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Word this as best you can. Following a storyline with multiple flashbacks is sometimes best done by summarizing them in time sequence when summarizing a 2-hour film in 400 words. Our local library had a copy of the dvd which records the following sequence of scenes in the film with their approximate time stamps. She first appears with her child after having it with a husband in the first 10 minutes of the film. Then flashback to her as a single unmarried professor teaching class when the aliens first arrive while she is still single and without child. At approximately 30 minutes into the film she first meets her future husband. At 60 minutes into the film she experiences her first premonition while starting to learn the alien language. More premonitions lead to world cooperation, and she eventually marries and has the child, and the film comes full circle to the introductory sequence at the start of the film. If you prefer your version of the storyline, then indicating the flashback points would help the plot summary. The current version does not indicate these flashback points in the plot summary. JohnWickTwo (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion to article Talk page. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pumi dog[edit]

The article Pumi dog you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Pumi dog for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sagaciousphil -- Sagaciousphil (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

A request... :)[edit]

Hi! I noticed you review and edit a lot of geography articles. I've been working on improving Lago di Bientina, but I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia and am not exactly confident in my work. It started out as one sentence and I've added a lot over the last few days. If you could take a look and give me some guidance, tips, or pointers, that would be awesome, I'd really appreciate it! Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ganesha811 (talk · contribs). You have chosen an interesting article, a lake that doesn't exist any more! I know Italy quite well but didn't know anything about it. What you have written looks good, although structured exclusively from a historical viewpoint. I know that malaria was a big problem historically for low lying parts of Italy, and I am sure the wider issue of eliminating it must be covered somewhere on WP; it would be good to cross-link to any such articles, for example History of malaria, . A citation for the early idea of draining in the 1500s would be helpful. A modern map showing the location would be good, if you can find one free of copyright restrictions. A section on the geography would be a useful addition - this could describe the location, and explain why a lake was there (i.e. where the water comes from and why it didn't drain away into a river). It would also be interesting to know what the area covered by the former lake is now used for (i.e. current land use). Otherwise, unless there is anything noteworthy to say about local geology, flora and fauna, or present day human activity, I think you have everything covered. MapReader (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed feedback! I'll take these suggestions in mind and work to improve the article that way. How can I be sure a modern map is free of copyright? It was tough enough finding two good historical ones that were. I definitely wanted to include a geography section but couldn't find enough detailed information on the pre-drainage lake to make it informative or worthwhile. Thanks again and I appreciate the praise! Ganesha811 (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I see that you have done some more great work on this article, Ganesha811 (talk · contribs). Finding a modern map for a lake that doesn't exist any more will of course be difficult; there are however within the Commons maps showing the location of the Province of Pisa within Italy, and of the Commune of Bientina within Pisa, and if these could be combined and added into the infobox (don't ask me how - manipulating image files isn't my speciality), it would help "place" your lake. I am thinking of something like the combined map here showing the location of Ventnor. Or alternatively a map of Tuscany with its principal towns including Lucca and Pisa, so that the reader can 'place' the lake from your description? MapReader (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


...for overreaching on the UK Parliament constituencies formatting. I was going to revert myself on the addition of "Sir" after seeing your revert on Warrington, but it looks like you've been taking care of that. Please let me know if there are any of my edits you haven't gotten to. Choess (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I was wondering why you suddenly decided to unpick a previous consensus, particularly when we had discussed it before. Assuming that we're only talking about your edits over the past 24 hours I think I have picked up most of them. Kind regards MapReader (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
AFAIK, there shouldn't have been any in my January edits; I just came back after a long hiatus and forgot the details. I double-checked and it looks like you got them all—thanks for catching my anachronism on Lord Ronald Gower, too. Thanks for being civil; it's little stuff like this that seems to drive people around the bend here. I appreciate the work you've done smoothing out these names of MPs and I don't want to make you waste your time fixing stuff like this last batch. Warm regards, Choess (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ventnor[edit]

The article Ventnor you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Ventnor for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ykraps -- Ykraps (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed MoS change: Nationality[edit]

Since you persist in casting your proposal in a certain light, I had to say my piece. I'm sorry - I believe I gave you every chance. Have a nice day. CapnZapp (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

That's OK CapnZapp, you are entitled to your view. I don't assume bad faith, in that I quite accept that editors who originally promoted the current approach didn't do so believing it was synthesis, or maybe didn't even intend things to turn the way that they have. Nevertheless my good faith view is that it is (the stated conclusion not being referenced directly, it's pretty much a textbook case), and in my honest opinion does represent a problem that needs fixing. I don't really see your beef with the proposed wording, which looks both specific and neutral to me. I also don't understand your point about referring to what we did before, which doesn't seem either neutral or really appropriate to an MoS, which should set out clearly what people should be doing? Regarding the talk, you specifically asked me to spell out in what way I thought the current approach deficient, and I gave you a direct answer. Thanks nevertheless for your input. MapReader (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
If you still don't get that those editors see technical data as reliable sources, and thus believe they are in line with policy, I can only surmise you don't want to see my point! CapnZapp (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
CapnZapp, they are of course reliable sources, but only for the information they actually provide: the fact of an entity's involvement in the series and its own nationality (leaving aside arguments such as whether Sony subsidiaries should all be considered Japanese, which is the sort of blind alley up which the current approach sometimes leads). But the technical data doesn't say "this series is British-American". WP:SYNTHESIS says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated". I contend simply that using the credits and then further sources to establish the nationality of the production companies is clearly multiple sourcing; using this to conclude that a series has the combined nationality of all of its production entities is a conclusion not explicitly stated. Consequently, what ends up in articles often doesn't reflect the RS, it really is that simple. MapReader (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Why dear Lord don't you say this to argue for your change? This is what I call a compelling, understandable argument, and I've banged my head bloody to make you see it. Do leave out the shaming bit (the sentence starting with WP:SYNTHESIS) if at all possible, though, since it will win you no votes. CapnZapp (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Would you care to revisit the debate, Capn? You'll see that I have moved to wording closer to your own suggestion, for which many thanks. MapReader (talk) 07:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't know what you're referring to; I don't see any edits of yours to the MoS talk page recently? Even so, I think more editors need to chime in before I have anything to say (that I haven't said already). Or perhaps everyone agrees with you silently? CapnZapp (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The last contribution on the talk page is mine, with a revised wording closer to that you had earlier suggested. I was hoping this would address some of your constructive input? Meanwhile I am also doing my best to attract some attention towards the discussion. If there is a compelling argument against something, we can rely on WP that it will be advanced by someone. Or, as you say, perhaps direct referencing is so uncontroversial as to not attract any comment? MapReader (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
You might care to know I invited the editor who reverted you at Downton to the discussion: [1]. No response. What this tells me is that it is time to proceed - merely discussing the matter more (at any talk page) won't get us anywhere, since you're not engaging with the people opposing you. Either change the MoS or start a RfC or [a third option I've overlooked] - either way they're forced to engage or if they keep silent you've established a new equilibrium (assuming you're successful) which they can't keep blocking. In short: give up the hope of winning them over peacefully, they're not interested in talking to you. Just my 2 cents CapnZapp (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. As the founder of WP has said, one of its drawbacks is that it can attract people who want to progress an agenda, rather than work with others to give readers the clearest and most accurate information. Such is life. I am hoping to get to a form of words that those of us who are willing to participate are happy with, before pressing onward. A revised wording is now on the MoS talk page and, as ever, your input will be valuable. MapReader (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Possesive s[edit]

If the person's name ends with an S, then they just need an apostrophe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

No, that isn't correct - Please take a look at Mos:poss. An apostrophe without an added s is only used for the plural possessive. MapReader (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Darkest Hour[edit]

With over 70 nominations and over 20 wins, can we move the accolades from the Wikipedia's main page to List of accolades received by Darkest Hour (film)? I posted this in the talk page of the film, but no one has responded yet. Daerl (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi - I don't mind, but am not really the best person to ask as my contributions to the page have been minor, correcting odd mistakes. I haven't actually seen the film yet. Why not check the stats and ping a couple of the editors who are responsible for most of the content? MapReader (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The Americans cast/table edits[edit]

Hi, since you contributed to the discussion about a revert done to The Americans (2013 TV series) article, I wanted to inform you that the discussion was transfered here, in case you wanted to keep up with it. Also, note that I restored your reply which Drmargi deleted from her talk page. Thief12 (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Plain English[edit]

Wikipedia:Plain English is an essay. "Garnered" is not a word with which a high-school student would, or at least should, be unfamiliar. I appreciate the simplicity of "won" (or even "earned"), but this project is not Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia and we can use a more advanced vocabulary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

If there is good reason, of course. If more complicated wording captures some nuance or aspect that putting things plainly would not. But in my view there isn't as far as this article is concerned. Someone won an award; why say "garnered" when there is no reason? MapReader (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with OP. I knew what "garnered" meant by the time I was in around 5th grade, if not earlier. It's very commonly used even in the entertainment press (e.g. "garnered many positive reviews"), which is about all the press the younger generation are reading these days anyway. And "X is just an essay" is invalid reasoning. People do not "cite" essays here as if they are policies; they refer to essays because they contain neatly packaged arguments that we don't want to have to re-type out again and again. If an essay and its reasoning are presented as an argument for or against something, saying "that's just an essay" isn't responsive. Address the content. Otherwise you're just saying "Your position is a position", which we already know; it's not refuting the position, just pointlessly confirming its existence.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


I feel compelled to apologize for inadvertently muddying the water at WT:MOSTV. There's been a whole lot of "talking past each other" going on, and I'll own my part in that. Happily, the primary active parties, including CapnZapp (despite some testy interaction between us, and I'll own up to my half of that, too), appear to be converging on the same basic set of conclusions. I think the main sticking point is whether it will be productive to just go change the guideline boldly based on what three editors are saying (more like 2.5, because I think it's a poor way to try to get at the desired result even if I agree with the latter), and in the face of stern opposition by another cluster of editors, over at Talk:Downton Abbey. I predict that it would backfire (for reasons dwelt on at WP:CONVENUE), and this is why I've suggested the RfC route. Two WP:LOCALCONSENSUSes editwarring and verging on a WP:POLICYFORK doesn't work. But if a solution is good, from a consensus perspective, then it will gain broad consensus if presented [well!] to the community to examine it. Get a determination of what consensus really is, based on actual policy not disputed and confusing guideline wording, then write the guideline to match, and implement the article-by-article conformation later. I've been at this a really long time (on-site and off – I was a professional policy analyst and issue-based activist all through the '90s) and this approach to policy formation and change appears to be the most effective, by a wide margin. It also often requires patience (sometimes months or even years of it).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi SMcCandlish, that is appreciated; you are an editor I have respected for some time, yet your early contributions to this discussion did seem unusually irritable and ill-considered. My issue was always far from "splitting hairs" - it actually plays directly into your recently expressed but long-held concerns about editing conventions that have developed within the tv wikiproject. Certainly, I have the persistence and patience to see this through - however you look at it, having an article on DA that conflicts with the majority view of the real world is plain wrong (if you do some digging you'll find a tiny handful of editors are responsible). CapnZapp is right that the underlying problem is with the MoS, and I have understood his perspective from the beginning, even if he hasn't always appreciated this. But an RFC on a single article will fail, given the MOS, and won't address the wider issue. Yet my attempt to deal with the MoS first, as the Capn suggested, has so far met with widespread apathy. I don't see an appropriate RFC on the article to pose, right now, and the next step appears to be to boldly edit the MOS, which will at least force the lurking opponents into addressing the concern directly. Unless you have a better suggestion? MapReader (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
My approach to this would be, then, to open a "clean" RfC either at WT:MOSTV or at WP:VPPOL, and at least notify VPPOL, WT:MOS, WT:MOSFICTION, WT:WPTV, and whatever else seems relevant (talk page of TV naming conventions page, etc.), plus the WP:NORN noticeboard. With a simple question: Should wording X be changed to Y? Then add your rationale as the first support comment. That should be broad and neutral enough. Use the DA dispute as an example, and maybe include a couple of others. There must be some. If there's not, then it's probably actually a WP:ANI matter! I'd bet money it's not limited to that article. That said, I'm not going to "walk back" the point of my initial commentary. In absence of any sources that discuss the "nationality" of a show (e.g. because it's brand new and there are few sources yet, just enough to establish baseline notability), it can't be forbidden to figure out that something is, e.g., a joint French and British (or whatever) production based on the available sources agreeing it was jointly produced by a French company and a British one. We don't have that for DA; we have source saying its a British show, that's received a boost from an American network (and nonprofit organization) with an interest in it. It's OR to leap from "got a leg up" to "is an American co-production". I'm just not sure how to codify the distinction. The concern I had with your draft was it appeared to require us to zip our lips shut about the production company if we couldn't find a source saying "This is a British production" in pretty much those exact words.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you again![edit]

Much appreciate the suggestions you made at the Peer Review for the article North Cascades National Park. Thanks to editors like you who are willing to review articles and offer excellent suggestions, it is now a Featured Article!--MONGO (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations! I am glad all your hard work was fruitful. MapReader (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)