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 Ucucha 00:37, 23 February 2012 [1].

Birth control movement in the United States[edit]

Birth control movement in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Noleander (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this article for Featured Article status because it is an important chapter of United States history which deserves to be well represented in this encyclopedia. The article has been through a GA review and a Peer Review. I'm familiar with the FAC criteria, and I've had one article promoted to FA before. I'm prepared to make any improvements to the article required to meet FA standards. Thanks for your consideration. --Noleander (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to work on the article: your copyedits are great. Regarding the references: I thought long and hard about that: I was balancing two competing goals (1) using "name"d footnotes to reduce the bulk of the Footnote section; and (2) avoiding multiple footnotes at the end of sentence.[1][2][3] by using WP:CITEBUNDLE. I struck a compromise: I used Cite bundling everywhere (so every sentence has at most one footnote), and I used named footnotes everywhere (that did not interfere with bundling). Thus, some cites are duplicated but only if they are bundled together with another cite. So, there is method to the madness. That said, if the reviewers decide that all must be named, I can undo the bundling. Or, if all must be not named, I can undo the naming. Personally, I like it the way it is, but I'm flexible. --Noleander (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But there are still problems with the refs: who is Praeger? Who is Baker? What does (Goldman/Sanger) mean? I forgot to check for all of these, or more accurately, forgot to check if you were using templates or not for your refs. You aren't, so these have to be checked manually... –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that oversight: Baker is a reference work that got dropped; I've added it back into the Refs section. Praeger is the publisher of the book by Lynn (Praeger is not an author). Goldman/Sanger: Footnote 25 is supporting a sentence that has several facts in it, and four distinct sources are used to support that one sentence. After each source, there is a terse parenthetical comment (e.g. "Goldman/Sanger") identifying which fact the source is supporting. I'll re-word those comments to be more understandable. --Noleander (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet comments
Good point. Footnote 40 does contain a brief mention that England and Netherlands were the two pioneering countries, before the US, in birth control clinics. I'll move that info into the body and beef it up. --Noleander (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I created an entire paragraph devoted to European birth control; and I mention the 1st European clinic when the 1st US clinic is introduced. --Noleander (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like the expansion, setting the scene where needed. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "frequent" so it now reads "... became concerned about the hardships that childbirth and self-induced ...". Is that satisfactory? --Noleander (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Added info about 1916 arrest into prior section. --Noleander (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Change to "term" (two occurrences). --Noleander (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - This article uses the Oxford comma convention. Thanks for finding the oversights. --Noleander (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - changed to the latter. --Noleander (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Changed as suggested ... no other formulation seemed better. --Noleander (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Although I cannot say if sex was widely distributed (one might hope so), I did change the sentence as suggested. --Noleander (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Moved cites to end; fixed punctuation. Reads better now. --Noleander (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very smoothly accomplished. Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Went with "in managing" --Noleander (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The RR sidebar ((Reproductive Rights Sidebar)) has been superseded by both (1) the Reproductive Health footer navbox; and (2) the current "reform movement" sidebar. The underlying assumption is that this article is more of a history article than a medical article. If you think it should be added below the "reform movement" sidebar, let me know and I'll do that. I've removed the "1877" commented-out question (since answered). --Noleander (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the hidden Roe v Wade text in the infobox should be taken out. I am satisfied with the explanation about the RR Sidebar. Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Sorry about that; missed it the first time. --Noleander (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, subject to resolution of a few relatively minor issues. This is an impressive article on which I commented fully at peer review. It looked strong then, and is stronger now. These are my outstanding points:-

Done --Noleander (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Yes, it does. --Noleander (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is a political minefield I'd rather not step into :-) The intention of the Conclusion section in the article is to talk about the wide field of post-WW II events dealing with women's reproductive medicine, not limited to contraception. Within that section, the birth control pill is mentioned, and is identified as a contraceptive. Immediately following that, are three drugs that are related to reproductive health, that may or may not be considered contraceptives, including RU-486 and ulipristal acetate. RU-486 is included in the template Template:Birth control methods; and it is described in the article emergency contraception (e.g. "However, in China and Russia only, mifepristone is available as either emergency contraception or as an abortifacient, depending on whether it is used before or after implantation..."). The reason I included RU-486 in the article is simply that it seem more encyclopedic - in the sense of giving the reader one-stop shopping for all information. Perhaps the best path forward is to keep RU-486 in the article, but add clarifying words to the effect that "it was initially utilized as a contraceptive, but is now generally regarded as an abortifacient". Does that sound acceptable? --Noleander (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I put the following wording into the article. Let me know if it should be changed: "In 1982, European drug manufacturers developed RU-486, which was initially utilized as a contraceptive, but is now generally prescribed as an abortifacient: used to induce abortion in pregnancies up to the fourth month." In addition, the accompanying footnote has: "RU-486 is still used for contraception in Russia and China." --Noleander (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That seems OK to me. Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Reworded to "To avoid consumer boycotts organized by anti-abortion groups, the manufacturer donated the U.S. manufacturing rights to Danco Laboratories (a company whose only product is RU-486), and the FDA approved the drug in 2000." --Noleander (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I get it; the manufacturers set up a front company with a neutral name, so as to evade the attentions of the antiabortion groups - is that it? If so, a slight rewording might make this fully clear. The approval by the FDA is surely a separate matter, and shouldn't be tagged on to the end of the sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Danco is more than a "front company". The European inventor, Roussel Uclaf, wanted to totally wash their hands of RU-486, so that anti-abortion activists in the US could not boycott the company. So a group of pro-choice activists formed Danco, with the sole purpose of manufacturing and distributing the product in the US. The European company then donated the US rights to Danco, forgoing all profit possibilities. Danco is privately owned, with no shareholders. Danco's offices are in a secret location in New York, and it produces no other products, so any boycott or bad publicity would have no impact. I've changed the article wording to: "To avoid consumer boycotts organized by anti-abortion organizations, the manufacturer donated the U.S. manufacturing rights to Danco Laboratories, a company formed by pro-choice advocates, with the sole purpose of distributing mifepristone in the U.S, and thus immune to the effects of boycotts." --Noleander (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This support is further conditional on there being no significant issues with images, sources and copyvio, which I have not personally vetted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll get right on those improvements. --Noleander (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, 1c, sourcing: I'm concerned about the extensive reliance on Engelman for a good deal of the sourcing. Perhaps you can educate me to alleviate my concern? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. The history of the birth control movement in the US is covered by several reliable secondary sources; most notably
  • Chesler Woman of valor: Margaret Sanger and the birth control movement in America
  • Tone Devices and Desires: A History of Contraceptives in America
  • McCann, Birth control politics in the United States, 1916–1945
  • Kennedy, Birth Control in America: The Career of Margaret Sanger.
  • Engleman A History of the Birth Control Movement in America‬
The participants of the movement wrote many essays, books & pamphlets, and there was a vast amount of contemporary media coverage, so those secondary sources had access to a copious amount of primary source material. Thus, the secondary sources agree on almost all points. Why did I rely on Engelman as the most important source? Two reasons: (1) Engleman is the one source that covers the topic a comprehensive, chronological manner (without focusing solely on Sanger); and (2) Engelman's book was published in 2011, after the others, so it is most likely to have the most up to date information. Therefore, I chose his historical outline as the armature on which to hang the article. Using another outline would necessarily involve some original research since I would have to cobble together my own outline. That said, nearly every sentence in the article could be cited to any of 3 or 4 sources. Would it help if I replaced some of the Engelman cites with cites to other secondary sources? --Noleander (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need, that answer satisfies my concern ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Noleander (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - The convention in this article is p. and pp. --Noleander (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Macmillan is the publisher of a couple of works cited in the article. I believe that no additional information is needed, correct? --Noleander (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - The article follows this convention: (1) References section lists only the sources read and used by me; (2) If the source mentioned another work, I sometimes identified the other work in the footnote, so interested readers could pursue; and (3) If I used a source only once, I put its bibliographic information in the footnote, rather than in References section. Following that convention, most of Sanger's works are listed in Further reading, since the sources mention her works, but I did not rely on Sanger's works. Her work Pivot of Civilization is used for a quote box ... I'll see if I can find a secondary source instead. --Noleander (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - see response immediately above ("The article follows ..") --Noleander (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Ensured that all book years are in parentheses after author. --Noleander (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - The article omits locations; so I removed location from two cites. --Noleander (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Done --Noleander (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Several sources indicate that the photo was taken January 8, 1917, but I am unable to find the name of the photographer, nor any information about where it was initially published. This particular photo is really helpful to readers, because it is the only image (that I am aware of) that shows birth control advocates engaged in an important legal battle: Two of the major advocates, Sanger and Byrne, were arrested and tried for opening the first birth control clinic in US history. The photo shows them on courthouse steps, leaving that trial. This trial was a watershed event: Sanger and Bryne were both sent to jail for 30 days. It is covered in the article in this section. So this photo does enhance the reader's understanding quite a bit, much more than prose alone could do. Let me know how you think we should proceed. --Noleander (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The added information on the source should be sufficient to allow it. The Corbis link metnions "Bettman"; any chance that's the author? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bettman is Bettmann Archive, a stock photo company that Corbis merged with. --Noleander (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Redundant tag removed. Page number: the uploader of that image (and Google hunting) indicates that the source is the "The Who-When-What Book" published in 1900, and those facts are in the Commons data. However, I cannot find a page number, and the book is not online. It may not be feasible to find a page number for this particular image. --Noleander (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - The Library of Congress information says it was published 1911; but there is no indication where it was first published. I've added that information (".. no indication where it was first published") into the Commons facts about the image. --Noleander (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Added link to ABC-CLIO, which is indicated as the original source. --Noleander (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - The editor that uploaded the 1926 advertisement (in 2007) provided the comment "published in the United States more than 70 years ago with no statement of copyright; public domain per US law.". And the copyright information page indicates that 70 years is the limit for articles published after 1923 if the copyright was not renewed. The "1923" box says: "This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923. " (bold emphasis mine). So, it appears that "1923" box is applicable not because the ad is from before 1923, but rather because the ad had no copyright notice, and the 70 years have expired (1926 + 70 = 1996). If that analysis is not correct, the image can be removed: it is not critical to the article. --Noleander (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be more helpful to use ((PD-Pre1964)) or ((PD-Pre1978)), or another more specific tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed tag to ((PD-Pre1978)). I was not aware of those other tags, thanks. --Noleander (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Provided new link to Library of Congress page with authorship info for this pic. --Noleander (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your, as always, comprehensive and astute comments. I'll start resolving them today. --Noleander (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Comment: Robert Dale Owen's image should be aligned to the left because he should be facing towards the article, per MOS:IMAGES. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Noleander (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 02:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Progressing well but a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing is still required. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport. I think it's a very good article overall, but I've been stuck on a few points.

Done - Improved to "The birth control movement in the United States was a social reform campaign to increase the availability of contraception in America through education and legalization." --Noleander (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - The source explicitly says that (in his opinion) no source other than birth control explains the decrease in birth rate - but the way he words it does leave some wiggle room. So I changed the wording in the article to say "Use of contraceptives increased throughout the nineteenth century, contributing to a 50 percent drop in the in the fertility rate in the United States between 1800 and 1900..." --Noleander (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, no. When I wrote the article, I wanted to include a graph showing the usage of contraceptives in the US over time, but I searched high and low and found nothing. The simple fact is that, until around 1940, there were virtually no surveys or studies of contraception. None. Hence, all information about usage rates prior to 1940 is anecdotal. --Noleander (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
The article is written in chronological order. Another reviewer suggested adding material covering birth control clinics in Europe, so I created the paragraph that begins "Birth control practices were generally adopted earlier in Europe than in the United States. ..." If you think the final "England 1821" sentence should be moved to later in the article, I can do that. As it currently stands, all the Europe material is co-located in the "Europe" paragraph, which makes some sense. I can go either way. Let me know.
Was the English one the second one in Europe? Did the English one have any influence on the U.S. movement, like the Dutch one did? Its significance is unclear.
I cannot find any sources that say if the England clinic was 2nd in Europe (or any other sequencing information) ... that sequencing/influence appears to be a topic that is not yet well studied by scholars. The sources do not say that the England clinic influenced the US (the sources only talk about the Dutch clinic in that regard). I can remove the England info, but it was added in response to a reviewer above who wanted more material in the article about birth control/clinics in Europe. Let me know, and I can remove it. --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, just leave it as it is. Getting whipsawed between two reviewers is no fun, I've been there ...
Good question. I originally had the MS photo higher, but moved it down because (1) she is also in the InfoBox picture at the top of the article; and (2) there was just no room in the sections where she is first mentioned ... it was too crowded up there. Since the picture distribution was "top heavy" I aimed at spacing the images throughout the article in an aesthetic way. But I can move the image anywhere you suggest: is there a particular section that would be best?
I'd put the Sanger picture where Goldman is. Goldman was so many other things as well, I'd be tempted to leave her out. From the article, Dennett is a more important figure specific to this movement, so maybe add an image of her in the "Early birth control organizations" section.
Done. There is no picture of Dennett that I can find, so I did not add one of her. --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Added sentence: "The pill became very popular and had a major impact on society and culture, for instance, leading to sharp increase in college attendance and graduation rates for women." --Noleander (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think a little more could be said than the clause you added inside an existing statement. And in general, this last section needs to be more clear that there has been ongoing debate about contraceptive methods that are considered by some to be tantamount to a very early abortion. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll see what I can find in the sources. The reason that section is a bit skinny is because the soruces treat "the birth control movement" as an era that lasted from 1914 to circa 1945. After that, it becomes something else, usually called the "Reproductive rights movement". So this "post WW II" section is not really supposed to be an in-depth section, but rather a WP:Summary style overview of material that is covered in other articles. That said, I'll see if I can beef it up with some more material about contraceptive battles post WW II. --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like there is another article that follows on to this one. But you could add something that links underneath to Beginning of pregnancy controversy. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Okay, I think I've made some improvements that should address those issues you raised: (1) I added a new paragraph covering the "is emergency contraception abortion or not?" controversy; (2) I added a link to Beginning of pregnancy controversy; and (3) I added wording to the final section which should make it clear that the "birth control movement" came to a conclusion around 1945; and that a new era commenced after that, under the name "reproductive rights". See sentence: "After World War II, the birth control movement had accomplished the goal of making birth control legal, and advocacy for reproductive rights transitioned into a new era which focused on abortion, public funding, and insurance coverage.". As for other articles, yes, I think there could be an article on The history of birth control or The history of birth control in the United States, but those hypothetical articles would go back in time before 1914, and would cover post-1945 events in detail. But the "birth control movement", as a radical social reform movement, wound down around 1945. Let me know if those improvements are satisfactory. --Noleander (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would drop "because they blurred the distinction between birth control and abortion" because not everyone agrees with that. I would move the two "Opponents of ..." and "Proponents of" sentences into that place (ahead of the two statistics sentences), which gives the debate. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - It now reads: "These emergency contraceptives, including Plan B and EllaOne, proved to be another battleground in the war over reproductive rights. Opponents of emergency contraception consider it a form of abortion, because it interferes with the ability of a fertilized embryo to implant in the uterus; while proponents of emergency contraception contend that it is not abortion, because the absence of implantation means that pregnancy never commenced.... [statistics here] ... " --Noleander (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my concerns have all been addressed, indicating support above. Good work. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Small comment: Could the image of the Clinical Research Bureau not be right-aligned? I say this because 1), the house is pointed in towards that direction and 2), it would stop there being a big gap down to the next section. --Lobo (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Noleander (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a very well-written and well-structured article. Readers will come away with a clear idea of the movement. It is well-researched (with the one exception I point to below).

Done - Yes, that sentence is poorly formed. I changed it to: "This was the first time a U.S. government institution had engaged in a sustained, public discussion of sexual matters; as a consequence, contraception transformed from an issue of morals to an issue of public health". --Noleander (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the encyclopedia is better with that paragraph. There are several articles that are yet to be written on this topic area, so I'm inclined to err on the side of casting a wide net now, since this kind of interrelationship/nexus/connectivity (birth control vs. free love) needs to be documented somewhere in WP. Plus, the final sentence "The free love proponents were the only group to actively oppose the Comstock laws in the nineteenth century, setting the stage for the birth control movement" is a good historical backdrop factoid. --Noleander (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea ... I'll give it a try (although I've had miserable luck getting photos from sources outside WP ... but there is always a first time!). --Noleander (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Good catch. I'll find a more reliable source. --Noleander (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your hard work on such an important topic! Wadewitz (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! --Noleander (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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