Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bank War/archive2

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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16 September 2019 [1].

---

Bank War

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bank War was an important sequence of events during Andrew Jackson's presidency and a significant topic in American economic history. When Jackson became President of the United States in 1829, the Second Bank of the United States was an extremely powerful institution that had enormous influence over American economics and politics. It was more powerful than today's Federal Reserve. Jackson believed that the Bank was corrupt and unconstitutional. He wanted to either significantly diminish its power or destroy it entirely. When his political opponents turned his dislike for the Bank into a political issue with which to defeat him for reelection in 1832, Jackson launched an all-out war to decimate the Bank's influence and ensure its collapse. He was successful. The economy did very well during Jackson's presidency, but his war on the Bank is sometimes cited as a factor which led to the Panic of 1837 just as he was leaving office.

NOTE: This article was nominated in May 2019. The nomination was closed because it did not receive enough feedback. The article has already passed both image and source reviews, and underwent a full review and received support from Orser67. Display name 99 (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Suggest citing the dates in the infobox, simply because it's not obvious from the article text why a cutoff of 1836 is used

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Page ranges (and for that matter ranges throughout the article) should use endashes not hyphens

I noticed a few cases of references throughout the article which used hyphens, and I replaced them with hyphens. I did not notice any page ranges in Bibliography or Further reading with hyphens. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Still a few references using hyphens (eg FN30), and some other types of ranges throughout (eg the date range in the Biddle title). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. I think this is fixed now. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• FN319 should be cited as a periodical article

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you explain? Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It uses {{cite web}}; however, because the source is a periodical article, it should use {{cite journal}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Don't use fixed number of columns for {{reflist}}

I don't see why not. I tried how it looked with the fixed column number removed, and the article ended up with just two columns that were overly long and didn't look very good. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Because that syntax is deprecated - see the documentation for {{reflist}}. You can set an em size for columns instead if desired. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. Em used. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• FN280 is missing a publication date

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Austin: the GBooks link provided is for a different edition than the one cited. Same with Hammond 1957, Hofstadter, Niven, Sumner, Smith

I fixed this for Hammond, Hofstadter, Niven, and Smith. I used a physical version of Sumner. However, that version is not available online, which accounts for the discrepancy. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

In that case suggest removing the link. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The link is there so that people can access the book online. I don't agree that we should remove it simply because the one that was used to write the article was a different edition. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Why not then use and cite the one available online? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, the reason why I did not cite the edition available online was because the physical copy of the book that I used was a different edition. Still, if you'd rather have me cite the one online, I can do that. Display name 99 (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I would be fine with either removing the link and leaving things otherwise untouched, or changing the citation and any relevant article content to the linked version, as you prefer. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I'm sorry for the delay, but I've chosen to keep the link and changed the citation to refer to the edition in the link. Display name 99 (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Check alphabetization of Bibliography. Also, when you have more than one work by the same author, how are you ordering them?

I detected one error in alphabetization and corrected it. My method of ordering works by multiple authors is to list them by the earliest publication date to the latest. I noticed one case in this article in which that was reversed and fixed it.

• Biddle ref has multiple typos

I'm sorry, but I didn't see any. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Source I'm looking at disagree on the correct spelling of the editor's surname, but "Boson" and "Houghlon" are definitely incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• For journal sources in Bibliography, be consistent in whether page ranges are included

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hammond 1957: OCLC link goes to an entirely different book. Same with Hofstadter, James, Van Deusen, Wellman

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Kim and Wallis" needs author names fixed

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• McPherson: given ISBN appears to be for a different edition. Same with Niven

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Wellman: check publisher name

I did. It appears to be same. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Source link suggests it should be "Doubleday"? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Typo. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Smith: OCLC link is for a different edition. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I have now responded to all of your points. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Sorry to be so slow.

• Can the back and forth allegations in the second paragraph of the lede be summarized?

I have shortened it. Display name 99 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• " Its headquarters were established in Philadelphia," "was" may be more common.

This has been changed. Display name 99 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Jackson’s associates never offered a platform on banking and finance reform," Did parties issue platforms then?

No. Jackson's supporters in the 1820s were very well organized for the standards of the times, but there were still no official party platforms or conventions. The first convention did not take place until 1831, and that was for the Anti-Masons. Whatever existed of the Democratic "Party" leadership in that election is covered by saying "Jackson's associates." Display name 99 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• "So as to conceal the incompatibility ... " I wonder if the reader really understands this paragraph. Is it really helpful? I think a much simpler explanation is needed.

I have altered the first sentence and added a sentence about why people who wanted paper money sometimes disliked the Bank. The paragraph itself is critical. Most of Jackson's followers could agree that the Bank was unsatisfactory. There was a general consensus that it was corrupt and possibly unconstitutional, but other than that, they disagreed on critical reasons as to why they were against it. Some of them, including Jackson himself, disliked it in part because it printed paper money. Others thought that it didn't print enough paper money. The question of hard money v. soft money and easy credit was an important one in the 1830s with presages the economic boom in the southwest (caused by Jackson's dismantling of the Bank and the increased lending and printing of paper money that resulted), the specie circular, and the Panic of 1837 which was caused in part by the situation in the southwest. Display name 99 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

All that is good, but some language contrasting the desire of regulators for large reserves of specie to prevent bank failures vs. the desire of banks especially on the frontier to lend out as much as they could might be welcome. Tight credit on the frontier made development difficult.

The article says in the next paragraph that the Bank forced state-chartered banks to keep specie on hand. The banks were all under the authority of the BUS at this point, so they weren't able to engage in uncontrolled lending like they were later. It's sufficient for now to simply say that it was the BUS's role to restrain them. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for the review. Display name 99 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Smaller banks lent less money, but their notes were more reliable.[63] " More reliable than what? The BUS?

Their own notes were more reliable because the BUS forced them to lend less money. I recognize this was unclear and have tweaked it. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Jackson would not publicly air his grievances with the B.U.S. until December 1829.[64]" But in the next sentence you say that it wasn't part of his agenda to deal with the BUS.

Originally it wasn't. He probably did not want it to survive his second term but was advised that it would be politically inexpedient to attack it right away. The article talks about how soon after he took office, Jackson received reports that the Bank had interfered against him in the 1828 election. That may have been what changed his mind. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• "The claim regarding the Bank’s currency was factually untrue," Is this accurate? There were certainly enough private issues, not all of which were from solid banks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It is accurate. There were issues, yes, with corruption and arguably in other areas, but alleging that the Bank's currency was unstable is simply not true. The Bank prevented runaway inflation by controlling small banks, which made notes more reliable. Remini, a historian more favorably inclined towards Jackson than many, writes, "On the contrary it had developed into a powerful central banking institution in full control of the credit and currency facilities of the nation and adding to their strength and soundness." (Remini 1981 p. 229) Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• "These struggles led to Vice President Calhoun's estrangement from Jackson and eventual resignation," I thought Calhoun resigned because he was more useful as senator from South Carolina with the nullification debates pending?

He did, but if his relationship with Jackson had not deteriorated, it's likely that he would not have resigned and maybe even stayed on to serve another term as vp, firmly positioning himself as Jackson's successor. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Done up to the start of "Failure of compromise"--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Jackson’s Kitchen Cabinet, led by Fourth Auditor of the Treasury, Amos Kendall, and Globe editor, Francis P. Blair, helped craft policy.[109]" I don't think the commas before the names are needed. Alternatively, you can consider putting a "the" before "Fourth" and before Globe.

Done except no "the" before Globe. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• "The liquidation of government stock would necessitate strong changes to the Bank's charter, which Jackson supported." this seems a bit vague.
• "Jackson conceded to McLane's pleas for the upcoming annual address to Congress in December," I'm not certain you mean "conceded". Maybe "acceded".

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Annual Treasury Secretaries report" pretty clear grammar problem here. Also, the link seems a bit EASTEREGG-like.

I resolved the grammatical issues and removed the link. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• "The Globe refrained from openly attacking Secretary McLane, but in lieu of this, carried hostile essays from anti-Bank periodicals." I might change "carried" to "reprinted".

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Done through 1831 address.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Within days of Jackson's address, party members gathered at a convention on December 16, 1831," we have a link for that convention.

Link added. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• "what appeared to be a perfect platform to defeat Jackson.[128][133]" I might phrase it as "what appeared to be the perfect issue on which to defeat Jackson."

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• " In addition, Biddle had to consider the wishes of the Bank's major stockholders, who wanted to avoid the uncertainty of waging a recharter fight in the increasingly likely event that an anti-B.U.S. president like Jackson occupied the White House after the 1836 election." Do you mean 1832 election? It would be too late by the time a president elected in 1836 took office, the charter would have expired.

I agree it doesn't make much sense. I don't have access to the source, so I replaced the problematic portion with "closer to the expiration of the charter." Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Jacksonian Representative Augustin Smith Clayton of Georgia called a motion to investigate allegations that the Bank had violated its charter." Do you call a motion or introduce it, or what?

Replaced with "introduced a resolution." Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Many legislators also benefited from the largesse supplied by Bank administrators.[143][145][121]" Not in numerical order.

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• You don't explain why the prohibition on notes under $20 was a reform.

This part was edited in by a different editor and cited a book that the editor wrote. I don't have access to the book. I've left a note on that editor's talk page asking if he could elaborate, but he edits infrequently so it might be a while. Display name 99 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

He responded and I was able to add an explanation to the article. Display name 99 (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• "because states were only allowed to tax the stock of Bank owned by their own citizens," some textual problem here I imagine. Also in "He pitting the idealized "plain republican" and the "real people" — virtuous, industrious and free[171][172] — against a powerful financial institution — the "monster" Bank,[173] whose wealth was purportedly derived from privileges bestowed by corrupt political and business elites.[67][174]"

I've tweaked the first part. I'm not sure I see anything wrong with the second. Display name 99 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• It strikes me that if Jackson's Bank veto message is such an important thing, you might want to have some quotations from it.

I've added two quotes. One is the most famous part of the message in which Jackson accuses the Bank of propping up the wealthy over ordinary people. The other is a much shorter one given later on in which Jackson criticizes the Bank on states' rights principles. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Daniel Webster charged Jackson with promoting class warfare.[166][176][177] Webster was at around this time annually pocketing a small salary for his "services" in defending the Bank.[178]" Immediate inline contradiction or claiming bias always feels a bit POV, especially as you've spent the last three paragraph in prose that is highly favorable to Jackson. As I recall, Webster was not the only one to take money. Must the latter sentence be here?

I think that the information itself is important enough to be included, but I checked the source (Remini), and he notes that Webster was certainly not the only person to engage in this practice. Therefore, I added "although it was not uncommon at the time for legislators to accept monetary payment from corporations in exchange for promoting their interests." Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Jackson's message provided no concrete proposals for a single alternate institution" ... "

In presenting his economic program ..." there seems a bit of a contradiction here.

Replaced program with "vision." I think that this makes it more clear that Jackson did not propose anything like a true policy in his veto. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• " Jackson cloaked his own hard-money predilections, which, if adopted, would be as fatal to the inflation favoring Jacksonians as the B.U.S. was purported to be.[183]" This seems a bit extreme. It wouldn't actually kill them.

I disagree. I'll quote this from the article: "When banks lend money, new money is actually created, which is called 'credit'. This money has to be paper; otherwise, a bank can only lend as much as it takes in and hence new currency cannot be created out of nothing. Paper money was therefore necessary to grow the economy." It might not be "fatal" to the people themselves, but it would certainly put an end to the credit and bank paper that they were demanding. Without paper money, there can be no economic growth let alone inflation. Banks make paper; they can't make gold or silver. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Despite some misleading or intentionally vague statements on Jackson's part in his attacks against the Bank, some of his criticisms are considered justifiable by certain historians." It's unclear if what follows is criticism by Jackson or by the certain historians. And this really feels like inadequate space given to criticism of Jackson. If there are none, I'll accept that, but half a sentence immediately contradicted by most of a paragraph justifying Jackson seems a bit one-sided.

You have to consider the paragraph before that, where the incompatibility of advocates for hard money and paper money is considered. I've tried to do my best to point out the flaws that most historians have recognized with the different sides of the Bank War. For Jackson, this means showing the inconsistency between Jackson's belief in hard money and his supporters' demand for easy credit. Also, it means pointing out that he didn't really have a firm initial plan for what to do with the economy after the BUS, or at least not one that he publicly articulated. I think I've done this pretty well. But it is well established that there was serious corruption in the BUS that Jackson was to some extent correct to point out. It's really for the sake of not being biased AGAINST Jackson that I have to show that such corruption existed. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• " As Jackson travelled, he was swarmed by enthusiastic mobs." Were these intended as political trips?

He tried to avoid openly campaigning for office in keeping with the custom of the day. The sentence has been changed to "Nevertheless, he often found himself swarmed by enthusiastic mobs." Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Jackson, incensed at this "cool" dismissal, decided to proceed with his Kitchen Cabinet to remove the B.U.S. funds by executive action alone." Well, you might want to say "as advised" by the KC or similar.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Vice President Martin Van Buren tacitly approved the maneuver, " You might want to state how it was that Van Buren is now VP.

I added that he was nominated for vp in the last paragraph of the section on the 1832 election. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Duane was appointed? Was this a recess appointment? Also, did the 1832-33 congressional election cycle result in any shifts in Congress?

I don't know. He accepted the office in January but wasn't sworn in until June 1. I imagine he had to wait to be confirmed, but none of the sources that I've found indicate a reason for the delay. I added information about the timeline. The 1832-1833 election cycle resulted in a greater majority for Democrats. I couldn't find any reliable source that talks about the shift in Congress. I had to settle for one saying that the House ended up after the elections with 140 Jacksonians and 100 anti-Jacksonians. Display name 99 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Van Buren had cautiously supported delaying the matter until Congress could reconvene on January 1, 1834." This reads as if Congress would have reconvened on 1/1/1834, which was not the case. Of course, nothing stopped Jackson from calling a special session.

I removed any mention of Congress reconvening. Jackson would not have called a special session because he wanted to remove the funds without Congressional interference. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• "sent his nephew and aide Andrew Jackson Donelson" As you mentioned him in connection with the veto message, he does not have to be introduced as if never before mentioned.

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• "and that he would announce his intention in Blair's Globe to summarily remove the deposits the next day, with or without Duane's consent." I might rearrange as "and that he would announce his intention to summarily remove the deposits the next day in Blair's Globe, with or without Duane's consent."

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Done to the start of "Removal of the deposits".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I've responded to some of your points so far. It may take a few more days for me to get to everything. These suggestions are helpful and I think that the article will be improved afterwards. Thank you for your time and attention. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

No trouble. I will keep plugging away at it but my work may be interrupted because I have to schedule September TFA next few days.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I've addressed all of your concerns so far. Display name 99 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Got it. I'll be back as soon as I'm done scheduling (not later than Wednesday).--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Calhoun, now a senator," You might want to weave that update on Calhoun into the language about him supporting a six-year charter renewal.

Done. I added the bit about him supporting renewal within the last few days, and forgot that I hadn't introduced him as a senator until later. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• "petitions in favor of Biddle's cause" Why not say "petitions in favor of rechartering the bank"?

Changed to "positions in favor of recharter." Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• You might want to clarify, when you talk about Whigs complaining that Taney and the others had not been nominated or confirmed, whether these were recess nominees, who could serve until the end of the session of Congress.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

"The first Coinage Act was passed in 1792 and established a 15 to 1 ratio for silver to silver coins." I think you mean gold to silver. You might want to link to the 1792 act and mention that because of this imbalance, gold flowed overseas for melting, rather than simply not circulating.

First part done. For the second, I consulted the source (Remini), who writes that gold circulated less but says nothing about it flowing overseas. I consulted some of the other main sources for the article, and they don't seem to mention it either. If you have a source that has information about gold flowing overseas, please share it. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I think my numismatic sources, especially Taxay discuss it (it is why they struck no eagles ($10 pieces) from 1804 until 1834, it made it too convenient to export overseas). I'll get back to you on this, not necessarily during the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Including when taking into account the Biddle-engineered recession, " This could be better phrased.

Changed to "recession engineered by Biddle." Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Woodbury ensured that banks' specie ratios remained consistent with those of the early 1830s.[301]" When you say "specie ratios", do you mean "reserve ratio" or "specie reserves" or something different?

It's the ratio of specie that the Banks held in reserve to paper money. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• "in the American Southwest.[307][308] " You might make clearer what this consisted of at the time.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• "(if food imports created a trade deficit, this could lead to specie exports)" I don't know why this is only "could" given international settlements at the time would have been in specie, it seems more like "would".

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Remini believes". You haven't introduced the person (who is deceased btw).

Fixed. However, when summarizing what a person says, I always use the present tense regardless of whether they are deceased or not. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• "wildcatters" you might want to pipe to Wildcat banking although it is a poor article.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I've responded to everything. Thank you for your review. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Nice work.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

I've added this to the Urgents list but, having been open for a month, it will need to be archived soon if it does not receive some more review. --Laser brain (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

OK Laser brain. The article was nominated a few months ago and received a review from one editor which ended in a vote of support. So far this summer, it has received two reviews, both of which resulted in the reviewers' concerns being addressed and ended in reviewers giving the article their support. I'm hopeful that no more than one or two more such reviews will be needed to pass the article. Display name 99 (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Orser67: Since you reviewed the article last time, would you be inclined to review it in its current state? Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think up for doing a second full review, but I skimmed the article and took a look at the changes that have been made since my last review and have no objections, so I'm still willing to Support the nomination. Orser67 (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Orser67, thank you for your support. Display name 99 (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comment - Despite the addition of support from a previous reviewer, this just doesn't have the legs and hasn't attracted any additional commentary in 10 days. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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. --Laser brain (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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