Talk:Lunar Surface Gravimeter/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Seddon (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 11:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Reserving. —Kusma (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Content and prose review

• Lead section looks short. Will comment on what is missing later.
• Background: there is some important context missing here. This is the 1970s, we do not yet know whether gravitational waves exist, and the Weber bars were probably believed to be working, but didn't. Perhaps this article ("A Brief History of Gravitational Waves") is helpful to expand this.
• Who made the instrument? How did they manage to convince NASA to take their experiment to the Moon? Context on Weber and his experiments would be very useful.
• "The principal investigator of the LSG experiment" who was that?
• "two were in operation during the time of deployment by Apollo 17." both on Earth?
• Description: "The experiment required its operational temperature to be maintained at 323 K" do we know what the tolerance of that is?
• Operations: "capability to measure gravitational waves was rendered inoperable" simplify
• "Joseph Weber's team had refused to test this device in a way that would emulate lunar gravity" would be good to know at this point who Joseph Weber is
• " large deviations from its desired operational temperatures" do we know why?
• Science: given that direct reliable detection of gravitational waves did not happen until 2015, I think the section overplays the importance of the fault in the instrument (or do people think it would have worked?)
• "Weber's team did not transfer any of the measurements taken between 1972 and 1976" transfer from where to where?
• "no papers were released by his research group" no papers at all, or none related to gravitational wave detection on the Moon?
• " The investigation suggested that combining the LSG and other Apollo seismograph data might increase the resolution and understanding of the Moon's internal structure" did anybody do that? First place to look is papers citing the one you mention [1]?
• "Lunar Gravitational-wave Antenna" who proposed this to whom?
• The infobox seems to be inferior to just using a captioned image.
• Lead section is missing content on description / background / non-use for gravitational waves / use as seismograph / future use.
• The lead mentions "viscoelastic tidal deformation of the Moon by the Earth and Sun"; if this is a separate point to gravitational waves, it isn't in the body.

First pass through the text done. —Kusma (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hugely appreciate the review! I'll attempt to take a look at both the content and general comments tomorrow. Seddon ^talk 22:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

General comments and GA criteria

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• No major prose issues, some see above
• Lead too short, see above.
• Broadness: some issues, see above. There should be more about the general context of the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package. Also, Weber's plans since his 1960 paper [2] are important context and not really covered.
• Ref layout is fine, but I agree with the "page needed" comment.
• You are not consistent whether you use full names or abbreviated names, but I guess that's optional.
• Images are free, but very similar to each other. Any reason why you are not using File:ALSEP Lunar Surface Gravimeter.gif?
• Do we know what the red bands on the image are?

Source checks to follow. —Kusma (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Looking at Special:Permanentlink/1213425741.

• 1 is a report by Weber and friends; there should be more independent sources. This is a suggestion. On p. 143 (not on GBooks, but my university allows me to access it via ProQuest) they just blame an incorrect computation
• 1 has 26 pages; page numbers would really help with spot checks / verification.
• 2: ok
• 3: Lots of information here that you are not exploiting.
• 4: should add author information; this is not some random website, but that of Schmitt. The claim is also corroborated here, but always attributed to Schmitt. I'm not sure "revealed" is the right word as long as we only have Schmitt's word.
• 5: page number? page 2-9 has nice technical data you could use.
• 6: page number?
• 7: ok, but paper could be used to write a lot more about the malfunction and reconfiguration (p. 346) and further attempts to use the LSG for gravity wave detection until "After 5 years of observation, it was concluded that the LSG could not detect evidence of lunar free-mode oscillation or meaningful data for gravitational radiation" (p. 347).
• 8: perhaps worth explaining a bit more what they plan to do

An interesting article about an experiment that was apparently supposed to be one of the superstars of Apollo 17 science. I am not fully convinced it is Good: it is sourced mostly to 1970s NASA or Weber reports and is somewhat lacking in broadness. It needs some work, but it should be possible to improve it fairly quickly. Will put on hold. —Kusma (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kusma: Ready for a 2nd pass whenever works for you! Seddon ^talk 02:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll probably be too busy today and tomorrow, but will try to get this done before the weekend. It looks much better at first glance. —Kusma (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Updated the progress box. —Kusma (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Task list

Seddon's task list based on the content of Kusma's first pass review

Prose Lead section looks short. Will comment on what is missing later.  Done: I've expanded the lede to give a very brief history of the instrument. Background: there is some important context missing here. This is the 1970s, we do not yet know whether gravitational waves exist, and the Weber bars were probably believed to be working, but didn't. Perhaps this article ("A Brief History of Gravitational Waves") is helpful to expand this.  Done: Done a complete rewrite of the background with some new sources found. Who made the instrument?  Done: Largely done. Whilst LaCoste claims to have been the prime contractor, NASA's sources all state Bendix was the prime for this instrument. How did they manage to convince NASA to take their experiment to the Moon?  Done: I've not found anything clear other than, the excitement around gravitational waves and NASA developing the Apollo concept were running in parallel. Weber was present at NASA meetings relating to general relativity and proposed a gravimetry experiment on the moon. So far I've not found anything explicitly connecting these events. But the temporal relationship has been noted without trying to editorialise too much. Context on Weber and his experiments would be very useful.  Done: I think I have this covered with the background rewrite "The principal investigator of the LSG experiment" who was that?  Done: Fixed with the rewrite "two were in operation during the time of deployment by Apollo 17." both on Earth?  Done: There were definitely more than two bars and I've removed the numerical context. It's not clear what bar instruments were precisely intended to be used in conjunction. But I have specified that they were on earth. Description: "The experiment required its operational temperature to be maintained at 323 K" do we know what the tolerance of that is?  Done Operations: "capability to measure gravitational waves was rendered inoperable" simplify  Done "Joseph Weber's team had refused to test this device in a way that would emulate lunar gravity" would be good to know at this point who Joseph Weber is  Done " large deviations from its desired operational temperatures" do we know why?  Done added a detail that this was due to the internal heater getting stuck into its "on mode" Science: given that direct reliable detection of gravitational waves did not happen until 2015, I think the section overplays the importance of the fault in the instrument (or do people think it would have worked?)  Note: Regarding this, whilst the device probably would never have detected gravitational waves, it rendered the device unless as a gravimeter. So it result in the device being incapable of fulfilling a third of its objectives. The fix to have the device provide any useful data also made it a worse seismometer. I think this can be made clearer. "Weber's team did not transfer any of the measurements taken between 1972 and 1976" transfer from where to where?  Done "no papers were released by his research group" no papers at all, or none related to gravitational wave detection on the Moon? Nope, nothing. Other than the NASA reports, nothing got published until the 2015 evaluation of the seismographic data. I've cited this. "The investigation suggested that combining the LSG and other Apollo seismograph data might increase the resolution and understanding of the Moon's internal structure" did anybody do that? First place to look is papers citing the one you mention [3]?  Note: As best as I can tell no-one has done that yet. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-020-00709-3 from 2020 includes no other mention. And the other citations of the paper reference the process with which the data was derived but not any additional use of it, at least from a quick perusal. "Lunar Gravitational-wave Antenna" who proposed this to whom?  Done The infobox seems to be inferior to just using a captioned image. Lead section is missing content on description / background / non-use for gravitational waves / use as seismograph / future use.  Done The lead mentions "viscoelastic tidal deformation of the Moon by the Earth and Sun"; if this is a separate point to gravitational waves, it isn't in the body.  Done Refs 1 is a report by Weber and friends; there should be more independent sources. This is a suggestion. On p. 143 (not on GBooks, but my university allows me to access it via ProQuest) they just blame an incorrect computation  Done - The expansion has definitely helped here but I've explicitly reduced dependency on the experiment final report. 1 has 26 pages; page numbers would really help with spot checks / verification.  Done - for a bunch of them 2: ok  Done 3: Lots of information here that you are not exploiting.  Done - The expansion has definitely helped here, I've attributed some bits and pieces and added in a few claims from this citation. 4: should add author information; this is not some random website, but that of Schmitt. The claim is also corroborated here, but always attributed to Schmitt. I'm not sure "revealed" is the right word as long as we only have Schmitt's word.  Done - Added the new reference, tweaked the wording, and updated the reference. 5: page number? page 2-9 has nice technical data you could use.  Done 6: page number?  Done 7: ok, but paper could be used to write a lot more about the malfunction and reconfiguration (p. 346) and further attempts to use the LSG for gravity wave detection until "After 5 years of observation, it was concluded that the LSG could not detect evidence of lunar free-mode oscillation or meaningful data for gravitational radiation" (p. 347).  Done 8: perhaps worth explaining a bit more what they plan to do Overall No major prose issues, some see above  Done Lead too short, see above.  Done Broadness: some issues, see above. There should be more about the general context of the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package.  Done Also, Weber's plans since his 1960 paper [4] are important context and not really covered.  Done Ref layout is fine, but I agree with the "page needed" comment.  DoneI've gone through the ones noted above. You are not consistent whether you use full names or abbreviated names, but I guess that's optional.  Done I think I've converted most of the ref names to use abbreviated names. Seddon talk 22:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Images are free, but very similar to each other. Any reason why you are not using File:ALSEP Lunar Surface Gravimeter.gif?  Done - Changed one of the images. I've also switched the lede to the image with a more zoomed out perspective as it answers the next point. Do we know what the red bands on the image are?  Done - This is the power and data connector to the ALSEP central station. I've changed the image to leverage the wider view to reduce the ambiguity the image might create with those bands.

Second pass

• Lead: look later
• Background: the clarification "(in size rather than mass)" does not seem necessary and not explicitly made by the source. "largest objects like stars and galaxies" is rather many orders of magnitude, but that is also in the source (it reads a bit like "smallest objects like grains of sand or atoms").
• Source 4 (Finley) would like a date and access-date.
• Source 5 (Barish) would like better bibliographic data. Also, is it the same as this? Might be a conference paper? Published? There must be better sources than a random preprint, even if by a famous person.
• "He suggested that Weber proposed both using that the Earth and Moon could both be leveraged to examine their interactions with gravitational waves." something went wrong during editing here.
• [[Brans–Dicke theory|work]] is a MOS:EASTEREGG, and the sentence is a bit long. Better "The Brans–Dicke theory, established by Robert H. Dicke and Carl H. Brans, also ... . According to this theory, ..."
• " an attractive option due to being seismically quieter" who is quieter than who?
• what is the ₀S₀ mode?
• La Coste-Romberg type gravimeters you are inconsistent about whether or not LaCoste has a space. Also, you link to LaCoste–Romberg later, why not here? Other ways you use to refer to the manufacturers are "LaCoste & Romberg" and "La Coste and Romberg". Better to stick with one of these. Are these two people or one company?
• Despite teams ... Despite the setback try not to start two consecutive sentences with "despite"
• the alleged observations seen by them not sure about the WTW here; "claimed" (though also a WTW) might be better than "alleged". "Seen by them" is slightly anthropomorphising the Weber bars; is there a better word?
• Experiment history: Four geophysics teams for the Apollo lunar surface exploration program were proposed by Willis Foster, Director of the Office of Manned Space Science in 1964 which included one dedicated to gravimetry consisting of Joseph Weber and Gordon J. F. MacDonald who was at that time at University of California, Los Angeles this is a bit convoluted and would benefit from splitting
• The whole section seems a bit jumbled (what is the ordering of the various facts?) and needs some typo checks ("Graviter", "experiments instrument")
• Might be helpful to gloss Arthur D. Little to clarify this is not a person, but a company.
• the flight article [...] was responsible for the flight hardware's electronics I don't get this.
• Concerns were raised by Marshall Space Flight Center about whether the experiment could be delivered by July 1972. but it was?
• Rather than being integrated at Bendix with the rest of the ALSEP experiments, integration of the experiment was done at Kennedy Space Center. what does "integration" mean here?
• Instrument description: The instrument is a gravimeter you use past tense most of the time, why not here?
• Other experiments that flew as part of ALSEP: it works to talk about them here, but perhaps there is an even better place.
• Surface operations: not sufficiently heavy enough the Department of Redundancy Department says hi; cut either "sufficiently" or "enough".
• applying a small amount of for force?
• the heater was manually commanded to cycle the instrument returned to its operational temperature something is wrong here
• Failure cause: The experiments researchers from University of Maryland explained that this was due to an arithmetic error, known by the manufacturers La Coste and Romberg, resulting in balance weights that were insufficient for use in the Moon's gravity and unable to provide the necessary adjustments to the instrument's sensor. several issues. "experiments researchers" grammar. "this was due" what is "this"? Do the people from Maryland claim that La Coste and Romberg knew the instrument was faulty? did the weights have too much or too little mass? why would weights provide adjustments?
• check all plurals and possessives. "devices weights" should be "device's weights", for example. This is an issue throughout the article.
• The story told by LaCoste/La Coste &/and Romberg (the people or the company?) does not sound consistent with "arithmetic error"; it sounds more like the instrument was not calibrated before being sent to the Moon.
• Future experiments: very little seismic activities and but the frequency bands that are suitable for the study of gravitational waves exhibit levels of noise orders of magnitudes lower than on Earth something is wrong here.
• Areas [...] are thermally stable which reduce any sensor noise cause by thermal variability. various grammar issues here
• they also happen to be some of the coldest locations in the solar system I find that difficult to believe; somehere out in the Kuiper Belt there must be lots of colder places?
• Two experiments that would study the theorised responses of a planetary body to gravitational waves were proposed in response to ESA ESA isn't a question. Also, would these experiments also live on the Moon?
• leverage an array of highly sensitive seismometers into to assess into to?

I am much happier with the broadness and content now, but there is quite a lot of copyediting needed. I think I'll have another look at sources when you are done with copyediting. —Kusma (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! I will get to work on this as quick as I can. I'm currently travelling for work but will prioritise this as much as I can! Seddon ^talk 15:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey Kusma, sorry for the hold up on completing this 2nd pass. I've dealt with most of the issues. One question I've left there. There is also some notes on how I've attempted to resolve some of the things. Let me know if there is anything else you see. Seddon ^talk 21:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I am happier with the way the flaw is addressed now, nicely dispassionate. —Kusma (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Time to review the lead section!

• There could be a little more about Weber from the Background section (that he was pretty deep into the whole business of trying to detect gravitational waves)
• You could mention the manufacturers in the lead.
• Generally try to say something about each (sub-)section of the article in the lead. For example, there is a lot of content in the Description section ("capable of measuring gravity to 1 part in 10^5") that would be worth mentioning.

Overall I am much happier now. I do have two more questions that could be addressed in lead and body (sorry):

• • How long was the device operational?
  • When was the "Lunar Gravitational-wave Antenna" proposed?

I'll have another look at sourcing soon and then we should be close to the finish line. —Kusma (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Talking about special:permanentlink/1219609884.

• Ref formatting could be a lot neater, but GA doesn't really require this.
• 1 could have a named author
• 10 author? page number?
• 14 there are individual authors for the chapters, and they could be cited by name (and page numbers would really help)
• 20 at least say this is a NASA report or mention NASA as website source
• 30 similar
• 35 normalise the ALL CAPS
• 40 isn't a good source, it is a research proposal for a future student.

Generally try to find more bibliographic data. A lot of the sources are semi-internal NASA reports; I would prefer more independent secondary sources but think it is acceptable. —Kusma (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Just completed a pass on the reference fixes requested. That is I believe everything requested. Seddon ^talk 01:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I've:

• expanded the lead including:
  • adding a note about the termination and reasoning for the end of the instrument.
  • adding the manufacturers to the lead
  • more about the importance of weber
  • other bits
• clarified when the new experiments were proposed (also included the second experiment).

Seddon ^talk 01:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that's all we need for GA. Before you make a trip to FAC with this, I suggest to ...

• Reduce the use of NASA technical reports as sources
• Format sources consistently
• Expand the background on Apollo science and ALSEP (some of this is also "background")
• Currently the gravitational wave section is quite long; unless you expand other parts, this is a bit unbalanced
• Mention more details about what astronauts did to the device and when
• Send the article through another copyedit (GOCE maybe?)
• Ask for feedback at PR.

Good luck! It was fun to learn about this. —Kusma (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Task list #2

Seddon's task list based on the content of Kusma's second pass review

Background: the clarification "(in size rather than mass)" does not seem necessary and not explicitly made by the source. "largest objects like stars and galaxies" is rather many orders of magnitude, but that is also in the source (it reads a bit like "smallest objects like grains of sand or atoms").  Done Source 4 (Finley) would like a date and access-date.  Done Source 5 (Barish) would like better bibliographic data. Also, is it the same as this? Might be a conference paper? Published? There must be better sources than a random preprint, even if by a famous person.  Done I've replaced the source with one that came out at a very similar time stating the same fact. "He suggested that Weber proposed both using that the Earth and Moon could both be leveraged to examine their interactions with gravitational waves." something went wrong during editing here.  Done cleaned up [[Brans–Dicke theory|work]] is a MOS:EASTEREGG, and the sentence is a bit long. Better "The Brans–Dicke theory, established by Robert H. Dicke and Carl H. Brans, also ... . According to this theory, ..."  Done - Removed the easter egg using some of the suggested text. " an attractive option due to being seismically quieter" who is quieter than who?  Done - clarified to be relative to the earth. what is the 0S0 mode?  Done - Given this is a highly technical term, I've scrapped the scientific notation and tried to use more general terms. La Coste-Romberg type gravimeters you are inconsistent about whether or not LaCoste has a space. Also, you link to LaCoste–Romberg later, why not here? Other ways you use to refer to the manufacturers are "LaCoste & Romberg" and "La Coste and Romberg". Better to stick with one of these. Are these two people or one company?  Done There are two points that lack clarity here. Sometimes I get the sense that LaCoste himself might have involved in the development of the instrument but I think it is safer to interpret it just as the company of which he may have played some part but still via the company he owned. Sources and even the company itself is really inconsistent on the nomenclature. LaCoste Romberg is the LLC and so for now I've gone with that. The gravimeter's they produced however do seem to be consistently referred to as LaCoste and Romberg gravimeter's particularly the D-meter so I've tried to stick to that. Despite teams ... Despite the setback try not to start two consecutive sentences with "despite"  Done - Fixed. the alleged observations seen by them not sure about the WTW here; "claimed" (though also a WTW) might be better than "alleged". "Seen by them" is slightly anthropomorphising the Weber bars; is there a better word?  Done - Gone for "recorded by the instruments". Experiment history: Four geophysics teams for the Apollo lunar surface exploration program were proposed by Willis Foster, Director of the Office of Manned Space Science in 1964 which included one dedicated to gravimetry consisting of Joseph Weber and Gordon J. F. MacDonald who was at that time at University of California, Los Angeles this is a bit convoluted and would benefit from splitting.  Done rewritten and split. The whole section seems a bit jumbled (what is the ordering of the various facts?) and needs some typo checks ("Graviter", "experiments instrument")  Done - I think I've fixed this. Might be helpful to gloss Arthur D. Little to clarify this is not a person, but a company.  Done the flight article [...] was responsible for the flight hardware's electronics I don't get this.  Done - Improved the wording here. Concerns were raised by Marshall Space Flight Center about whether the experiment could be delivered by July 1972. but it was?  Done - It can be assumed so though its not explicitly stated. I think I've linked it a little better with the sentence that follows without editorialising a little too much Instrument description: The instrument is a gravimeter you use past tense most of the time, why not here?  Done Other experiments that flew as part of ALSEP: it works to talk about them here, but perhaps there is an even better place.  Done I've moved it into the section above. Seemed the next best place for it. Surface operations: not sufficiently heavy enough the Department of Redundancy Department says hi; cut either "sufficiently" or "enough".  Done applying a small amount of for force?  Done check all plurals and possessives. "devices weights" should be "device's weights", for example. This is an issue throughout the article.  Done - I think I got them all. Failure cause: The experiments researchers from University of Maryland explained that this was due to an arithmetic error, known by the manufacturers La Coste and Romberg, resulting in balance weights that were insufficient for use in the Moon's gravity and unable to provide the necessary adjustments to the instrument's sensor. several issues. "experiments researchers" grammar. "this was due" what is "this"? Do the people from Maryland claim that La Coste and Romberg knew the instrument was faulty? The story told by LaCoste/La Coste &/and Romberg (the people or the company?) does not sound consistent with "arithmetic error"; it sounds more like the instrument was not calibrated before being sent to the Moon. I'm pairing the two points together here because there are both overlapping and somewhat contradictory sets of stories: So.... the claim of the arithmetic error is definitely the maryland researchers version of history and one that was repeated in NASA documents by them and then repeated by later sources. Weights were light because of a manufacturer's error in calculations converting from 1-g to 1/6-g requirements. ALSEP termination report (page 89) It was then determined that an error in arithmetic made by the vendors had not been corrected while developing the instrument. Kawamura (2015) Because of a faulty calculation, those installed were not the proper weights for the Moon. [Taking Science to the Moon] The people from Maryland did also claim that La Coste Romberg knew the instrument was faulty. It was then determined that an error in arithmetic made by La Coste and Romberg, and known to the firm's highest officials, had not been corrected by La Coste and Romberg. LSG FINAL REPORT page 7 The story told by LaCoste Romberg does not sound consistent with "arithmetic error". I agree, I would definitely love to hear your thoughts on how to balance their (extremely plausible sounding) version with it potentially still being a possible COI version and effectively unrepeated by any other source Did the weights have too much or too little mass? why would weights provide adjustments?  Done I've clarified this and lead with this as this point is uncontested. I've also restructured some of the other points. Future experiments: very little seismic activities and but the frequency bands that are suitable for the study of gravitational waves exhibit levels of noise orders of magnitudes lower than on Earth something is wrong here.  Done - Fixed up the wording here to try and making things clearer. Areas [...] are thermally stable which reduce any sensor noise cause by thermal variability. various grammar issues here  Done - Tweaked the wording. Split the sentence. they also happen to be some of the coldest locations in the solar system I find that difficult to believe; somehere out in the Kuiper Belt there must be lots of colder places? It's a fact that keeps getting repeated in a numerous sources such as in New Scientist New Scientist (2009) I think the key word here should is "measured" making it the coldest temperature measured anywhere in the solar system! NASA (2013)  Done I've added this to the sentence as it clarifies the statement. Two experiments that would study the theorised responses of a planetary body to gravitational waves were proposed in response to ESA ESA isn't a question. Also, would these experiments also live on the Moon?  Done - rewritten and added some additional clarification leverage an array of highly sensitive seismometers into to assess into to?  Done - fixed. the heater was manually commanded to cycle the instrument returned to its operational temperature something is wrong here  Done - fixed.

• Lead: look later
• Rather than being integrated at Bendix with the rest of the ALSEP experiments, integration of the experiment was done at Kennedy Space Center. what does "integration" mean here?
  •  Question: I can't find an explicit definition. I can infer that some of that includes things like testing and the loading onto, and preparation of, the ALSEP sub-palettes and then loading onto the LEM but so far I've not found a good breakdown of precisely what is meant when the term integration is thrown around.
    • It is not too terrible because we have the "integration" with the rest of ALSEP mentioned earlier; while it isn't clear what exactly was done, it is clear it had something to do with bringing the experiments together. —Kusma (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Made a small tweak to the sentence to make this a little clearer. Seddon ^talk 01:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.