Talk:Grand Central Terminal/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 14:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to start this review - at a quick read it looks like a great article, but it is heavy so it could take a while! Great work, though. Kingsif (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Thanks for offering to take up this huge article. I'm going to ping @Ɱ, PointsofNoReturn, and Kew Gardens 613: as well. epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the initial comments - I have a midterm test today, but will come back afterward. epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, good luck! Kingsif (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I just took my test, so I'm able to respond now. epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Style

Lead

• 21.9 million visitors in 2013, excluding train and subway passengers has me confused - is this just people coming as tourism?
  • Yeah, just visitors-shoppers, tourists, etc. Not people using transit services here. ɱ (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Ah, fantastic. I was trying to think what other trains might be there. Kingsif (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Is it "similarly named" or "similarly-named" in the MOS? (I assume you read it to write this very nice lead, but if not I'll check myself)
  • Since "similarly-named" is an adjective phrase, I think it's a hyphen. epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Is there a possible wikilink for "intercity trains" (some NYC transport article perhaps)?
  • Intercity train has its own article, so I linked that.
• Saying that there are 30+26 tracks, and then 43 tracks are in use for passenger service; two dozen more serve as seems like bad math... I assume that there's some crossover between the 43 and 24, but the word "more" suggests otherwise? Any clarification?

Kingsif (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• There are 67 tracks in total. Only 56 contain platforms, while the other 11 are now storage tracks. Of these 56 tracks, 43 are in passenger service. :*There are 30 passenger tracks on the upper level, and 26 passenger tracks on the lower level (excluding storage tracks). If storage tracks were included, the counts for both levels would be higher. epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: Could this be clarified in the article in a way that doesn't add too much? (Sorry if you've done that and I've missed it, just added a bunch more comments!) Kingsif (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I've done that. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Name

• Perhaps the second sentence of this section could be broken into two? I'd suggest after '1910', replacing "and which" with 'This', but however you like should work. Kingsif (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I tried doing this. epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Services

• The commuter part looks fine. If I were being demanding, I'd suggest that it might be clearer earlier on if the last sentence were above the list of lines, but I also can't think of a way to do that well and it's a tiny point.
• In connecting services, the these routes in the first line could be 'the following routes', otherwise this part is clear.
  • Done. epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• In Former services:
  • Is the rather long list of train lines from Canadian to Sunset Limited really needed? (if so, there should be a comma after the last station, and perhaps it could be trimmed)
    • It's not actually long. If we listed all named trains (not even all trains) to utilize GCT, the list would be gigantic. So I listed major NY Central/Amtrak routes across the country, all long-lasting, famous, named trains, that utilize(d) Grand Central Terminal. ɱ (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • A short explanation of the Empire Corridor could be useful (just "the cross-state route to Niagara" or something would suffice)
    • Done. epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Planned services satisfactory.

Kingsif (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Interior

• This is where the explanation of the two levels is given - the terms have been used earlier, but it's not hard to understand so I don't think there is need to move this up.
• Calling the layout a 'scheme' seems a little unusual, but I can't think of anything better.
  • "Configuration" perhaps? I've added that in. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• The first section on the Main Concourse is good - in the last paragraph of this the phrases "original to the station" and "original to the terminal" are used very close together; perhaps they could be made the same or changed a bit further, though not necessary.

  • Reworded the second one. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  • As another note, it could maybe link to the section on the ceiling that's below?
    • Added the link. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Who has said that the brass clock may be Grand Central's most recognizable icon? Are they more certain?
  • Added attribution. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• There are two 'designers' listed separately - I assume the first was appearance and the second was function?
  • Yes, that's correct. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• I don't think the urban legend needs to be in parentheses.
  • Removed that, but I don't think I was the person who added the parenthetical note. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• I feel that the sentence starting There have been five departure boards may fit better above the row of images
  • @Ɱ: What do you think? epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Perhaps? Though I would really have to pick through the sources in that para to attribute that sentence; there's no one source that cares as much as I do about these boards, that has complete start and end times for four, nonetheless five boards. ɱ (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• At Its walls and seven large transverse arches are of coursed ashlar travertine, perhaps a 'made' could be put before "of" - I automatically read 'of course' and was confused
  • Fixed that - I didn't realize that this might be confusing. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• "first floor" is also mentioned in the passageways part - perhaps this could link to the page Storey or the numbering section there; though the article is in AmEng, the US and Canada are the only places that use this scheme so it's possibly considerate to explain it for the rest of the world who assume it's not at ground level
  • Added the link. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Grand Central North part good.

Kingsif (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• In the Vanderbilt Hall part, maybe change and the Main Concourse to its north to say "which is to its north", so as to not confuse which is where (even with the map)
  • I did that with a few changes. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• In the next sentence about the chandeliers, it might be better saying that each has 132 bulbs on four tiers.
  • Done. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Squash (sport) is linked twice in two sentences, the second is probably unnecessary.
  • Removed the second one. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Aren't most theatres-in-the-round surrounded on all four sides? I don't find the comparison necessary, and it may be a bit inaccurate.
  • Not sure, Ɱ might know since he added the section. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • The Forbes ref calls it that, and I don't see any indication of a prescribed number of sides on the Wikipedia article for the subject. It does note the shapes can be "rectangular, circular, diamond, or triangular." ɱ (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Also photos and this video show four viewable sides. Maybe just some years it was three? ɱ (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• In the part about 'Agern', "85-seat" is duplicated.

Kingsif (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oops, fixed that. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Why would series of lockers need restoring? Perhaps their existence could be mentioned outside the list of 'issues'?
• In the sentence starting An overpass between the main concourse, a bridge is mentioned - though I assume it's the same as the overpass, this could be clarified, maybe by saying 'this bridge' or repeating 'overpass'?
• The lost and found part uses "it" to refer to ashes - should be 'them', or replace with something like 'the urn'?
• Could link "Florentine" in the Campbell mention to Florence for clarification?
• Should In 1966, the vacated studio space was converted to Vanderbilt Tennis Club not say 'converted into'?

Kingsif (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I resolved all five comments above. epicgenius (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you! Sorry for the sporadic-adding, I'm now working subsection-by-subsection. Kingsif (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Its only remaining vestige is the storage yard under the Waldorf Astoria New York hotel built in 1931 also doesn't need parentheses.
• At A new substation —the world's largest at the time — was the dashes should both be unspaced emdashes (i.e. "substation—the world's largest at the time—was")
• In the sentence beginning "Occupying a four-story space...", is "footprint" the clearest word choice (especially since it's below ground)?
• Tracks 12, 22, and 31 do not exist... - no need for parentheses.
• Could be clearer what 'their' is at To their east sits the East Yard - perhaps change to "To the east of the passenger platforms..."?
• It would be better to turn the first sentence of the second paragraph of 'Track distribution' (North of the East Yard is the Lex Yard, a secondary storage yard under the Waldorf Astoria Hotel that formerly served the power plant for Grand Central Terminal.) into two, with the split after 'Waldorf Astoria Hotel'.
• In this same paragraph, passenger platforms are mentioned but it still seems to be referring to storage yards? Could this part be clarified?
• The acronym LIRR should be introduced right after Long Island Rail Road.

Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Thanks, I have done all of these. epicgenius (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Architecture

• Does Sylvain Salières have a page on French wikipedia that could be interlanguage linked?

Nope. ɱ (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Originally slated to measure... may read better to say "Originally intended..."
• The hatnotes for the facade and ceiling don't match - which is alright, but could be altered.

Well the ceiling hatnote links to all details in full. The facade hatnote is different; the section here covers architectural elements of the facade and minor details on each of the artistic elements, while the hatnote is for further info on these artistic elements: the statue group, Vanderbilt statue, and clock adorning the facade. ɱ (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Does the iconography section really need to define acorns? It's very common, but could also simply be wikilinked.

Oak trees come up in that paragraph too, so I think without the clue in, people could miss the link between oaks and acorns, besides that they both are from trees. Perhaps could instead state something like that the Vanderbilt motto is accurate, but I don't know how to word that without it being awkward. ɱ (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Kingsif (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Related structures

• Some of the viaduct information could be expanded - for example: did the western leg originally serve both northbound and southbound traffic? Is the sidewalk on the viaduct level, and which side?

Yes it used to be a two-way road, covered in the main article on the subject. The sidewalk on the viaduct is visible in Google Maps' street and satellite views, though I'm not sure if sources cover the details. There is a valet parking area/taxi dropoff area for the hotel on the side of the viaduct - this sidewalk continues to the southwest corner of the viaduct where the eagle statue is. Unfortunately there's no crosswalk or anything between the two sidewalk segments (left and right of the overpass) so it's near-impossible to cross during most times of the day - too much traffic. Does this help? ɱ (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ɱ: Some of this could be cleared up in the article if there's sources for the history? Kingsif (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Is "post office station" correct? It's only called a post office throughout except this instance.

Likely meant to be "post office building", fixed. ɱ (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• In the first sentence of the subway part, "dubbed" seems too informal - the sentence works fine without it, so this word could be removed.

Kingsif (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. ɱ (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

History

• The predecessors part discusses reaching capacity in the mid 1890s but then that expansions were made in 1885 - this could be correct, but equally one number could be a typo. It also disrupts the flow somewhat, especially when the next section is about hitting capacity again.
• It then says something happened in 1908, and "later" Wilgus wrote a letter, but Wilgus expanded on this plan in 1903? It's very detailed, but could be stronger chronologically.

1908 was a deadline, not the date of something happening. The chronology is correct here. ɱ (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• It mentions the final Amtrak train, but has not mentioned Amtrak before, it's a bit of a jolt. Amtrak could be mentioned earlier in the section.

Done. ɱ (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• The mention of the proposed MTA purchase leaves the reader hanging - did they buy it or not?

Epicgenius, not sure how you want to say it. ɱ (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I made a few changes. I think it is now clear that the purchase was finalized. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Kingsif (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Innovations

• As the terminal still exists, should the offered at the start not be "offers"? Or some other phrasing that establishes the facilities were deemed innovative at an earlier time than the present without being potentially misleading? Though the section does suggest that some of the innovations are still considered present (e.g. departure times), so present tense should suffice.
  • @Kingsif: Thanks for the final comments. The facilities were considered new for their time. I have changed the wording to reflect that. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• all types of travelers sounds strange, just "all travelers" should work fine.
  • Done.
• The word "portion" is used several times, is 'area' not more common?
  • Fixed.
• The air rights are mentioned; I think there's a discussion about this on the talk page, are there any updates on that?
  • No, nothing in particular. The last major transaction was the transfer of air rights for One Vanderbilt. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• The comment of the Helmsley building image could be expanded, perhaps to something like the one at History of Grand Central Terminal, to inform why it's included in this section (or move the image down to the subsection where it's mentioned)
  • Done.
• The use of "either" in the constituent structures sub-section has a different tone to the information - it could be rephrased to use "both ... and" (not "either ... or")
  • That actually is the case here. However, the word "or" is pretty far into the phrase. ...either constructed the structures and rented them out, or sold the air rights to private developers who would construct their own buildings. Nevertheless, these long phrases are needed since they explain why there was one or the other. I have changed it now. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• Is the "razed" in ...part of Terminal City was gradually razed or reconstructed with steel-and-glass designs... referring to being burned flat, or some other definition? In either case, I feel it needs a wikilink or a wiktionary link for clarity.
  • Demolished, as in gradually taking apart the structure. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Kingsif (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Emergency services

• Were the officers patrolling unclothed or just not in uniform? Kingsif (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • They were literally patrolling unclothed. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Art installations...

This is fine, but could be expanded a bit; if there are some notable examples, perhaps? Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Ɱ: Got any ideas? epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

In popular culture

• The references for the sentence Almost every scene... could be reordered just for numerical order.
  • Done.
• The sentence On October 19, 2017, several of these films were screened... starts out fine and then becomes an "and X and Y and Z" of details, confusing the relations. This should be rewritten.
  • Split into 2 sentences. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• I feel that maybe the entire mention of SNL should be in this part, as the rest of the influence subsection is about other stations modeled on the terminal.
  • I think this might have been fixed. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC) I fixed it now. epicgenius (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• On another note, it may be possible to create an article on depictions of Grand Central Terminal in media, as a main| for this section.
  • Yeah, hopefully. Though it may become abandoned like Empire State Building in popular culture, Central Park in popular culture, etc (both of these had their "Popular culture" sections condensed when they became GA's). epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Kingsif (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Coverage

• Is N2 in the lead needed (i.e. a terminal is still a kind of station, per Terminus station, so it feels redundant arguing the clarification), especially with the terminus/terminal station section already linked in the same sentence. Kingsif (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

We could move the description to the "Name" section instead, but trust me it has been necessary. "Grand Central Station" is very well embedded in popular culture, even leading the original article creators here to create the page as "Grand Central Station". A clear note of the similarities and differences in the terms is needed, more than just the passive link to rail terminal. ɱ (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I now have a vivid image of frustration at the name being changed to station, so thanks for the chuckle. However you want to do it should be fine. Kingsif (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, in Linda Fairstein's fiction book Terminal City (which I started reading this week, and is set around the terminal), an entire page is devoted to one of the characters saying how it's actually a terminal and not a station. Actually, the characters spend multiple pages talking about the history and the terminal's features, but that's beside the point. The character in question was complaining that "Grand Central Station is the name of the IRT subway stop" (p. 170). Beside the point, but anyway, an interesting anecdote. epicgenius (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Everything in lead mentioned and expanded on substantially in article body. Kingsif (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• The services section is rather straightforward, covers all. Perhaps mentions a few too many lines-formerly-accessible-by-transfer, more than enough to get an understanding, at least - this is mentioned above. Kingsif (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Is there any given reason why the skylight was impractical? Kingsif (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The skylight would have been huge, but probably wouldn't have had a strong support system at the time. At least the barrel vault holds up the ceiling. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Any update on platforms since 2016? Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No, still the same. epicgenius (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• Do we know what material the "large columns designed to hold the weight of a 20-story office building" are made of? Kingsif (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It's steel. epicgenius (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• If it's calling Pennsylvania RR the "arch-rival", more details of this rivalry could be included.
• The mention of the Pan Am/Met Life building seems unrelated, unless its creation was linked to the Grand Central skyscraper plans?
• APU being absorbed by American Financial Group also seems to be an extra detail, especially since it doesn't mention if this company then gained ownership of Grand Central.
  • This bit of info could also be moved to the American Financial reference in the renovation subsection.
• Are there any sources with reactions to the giant billboards taking over the station?

I'm removing the word 'billboard' because that usually has a connotation with lit outdoor ads. The NYT article, ref 86, has some reactions. I think the GCT history article can/should cover this, not this summary. ɱ (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Kingsif (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Illustration

• Fantastic to have an up-to-date audio article
  • Wasn't even aware of this, seems to have been made two weeks ago. Thanks @JohnAnkerBow:. ɱ (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• I'd turn the portal box in see also into a portalbar, but that's just my preference
  • There's enough see also topics that it doesn't jut out much - prefer this method to make the article as short as it has to be. ɱ (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Amazing selection of commons images - all used appropriately and often of the best quality
  • Thanks, yup, spent a lot of time hunting, and a big trip of a few Wikipedians to adequately cover details of the building. ɱ (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• One non-free image used with appropriate rationale, and in a place where it is useful for coverage (Solari board)
• A frankly beautiful infobox
• Good use of interactive visual elements
• There may be one too many images in the Vanderbilt Hall stack; the squash tournament doesn't necessarily need to be illustrated, and having three pushes into the Biltmore section and creates an image/text/image tunnel. This wouldn't stop me from promoting, but something for you guys to discuss?
  • Depends on the width of your screen. I personally find the three important enough to show, and don't mind sandwiching as much as many Wikipedians. Thinking of an alternative... ɱ (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• The track map is also very nice, including an in-box legend as well as the link, compass and labels. I do have one genuine question: were the signal towers intended to be included in the map layout, since they're mentioned in the box?
  • Which map(s) are you referring to here? Was it Template:GCT track map? ɱ (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, it says Note: Interlocking towers A, B, C, F, and U have been deactivated., and these towers are mentioned in the article body but they're not in the map as far as I can see? So I'm not sure why this note is here and not in the body text? Kingsif (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I presume @Epicgenius: didn't complete it or chose not to include them? Pinging him here. ɱ (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
        • I didn't have enough time to place these on the map. I will look at this later tonight. epicgenius (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
        • In the article, there's the text Grand Central Terminal was built with five signal control centers, labeled A, B, C, F, and U. The sources don't say exactly where these towers were located, and in any case, I don't think there's space in the template to put the icons for these control centers. Or I may just be reading the diagram wrong. epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
          • That's alright. Kingsif (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Pass

Neutrality

Yeah, this is fine.

• Pass

Stability

• I'm a little concerned about the recent vandalism from 169.199.168.233; ClueBot seems attuned to this, though
  • There are 233 page watchers, so I am not worried. ɱ (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Other than that, looks great
• Pass

Verifiability

• The refs could be reorganized into a more formal format - this is unnecessary for GA, but if you want to nom for FA it would be ideal (and also fits much better with a such a detailed article!)
  • I personally prefer this more layman-friendly style. Many readers will not understand abbreviated work titles, as well as abbreviations like ibid, idem, loc cit, and op cit. Unnecessary alienation in my view. ɱ (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, "ibid", etc. are violations of MOS. I think the {{harvnb}} templates are suitable enough - they don't clog up the main text with 50 instances of the same reference, and they also link to an entry in the bibliography below. epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
      • @Epicgenius: I was mostly referring to adding title/source/author and similar to refs like the current [3] and [4], [25]. Kingsif (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
        • @Kingsif: This seems to have been the only case of the refs not being completely filled out. epicgenius (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• Sources look good
• A few refs could have their sources cleaned up a bit - "nbcnewyork.com" should just be "NBC New York", for example
  • fixed, let me know if anything else stands out. ɱ (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• The statement ...colloquially as the "Kissing Room". is missing its ref - it's the current [125] (Mann, Ted).
  • fixed. ɱ (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Everything else cited in-line
• Lead follows ref guidelines
• Pass (minor clean-up)

Copyright

• Check seems clean
• Good rationale for non-free image.
• Pass

Overall

@Kingsif: Do you have any additional comments? Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, went without Internet for a while! Kingsif (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

on hold This is looking great, and your updates are really timely! Putting on hold for responses to the last sections of comments, and I may go over the sources again, but it's very close now, thanks for the hard work, guys. Kingsif (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius, PointsofNoReturn, and Ɱ: I've done a final source check; all the references work and give enough information, there is a wide variety of good reliable sources, and from a random spot check they all seem to be accurately sourcing the info in the article. With only the question on expanding the Art installations section left, I don't feel that's enough to hold it back from promotion. Great work! Kingsif (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)