" 
 ::::Oh, I'm fully aware that the religion data comes from the Glenmary Research study.  Unfortunately, getting it through city-data.com means that I don't have access to the study itself (hence getting it ""second-hand"") and thus an incomplete view of the data or even context for the data (much like the problem Ruhrfisch found with that 77% of workers number in the Economy section; without the proper context it doesn't make sense and looks inaccurate).  As for messenging reviewers, after the failure I messaged both SandyGeorgia and Tony1 and Tony1 replied several days later (in one line) on the post I left on SandyGeorgia's talk page; she never replied to my direct question or even to my changes on the FAC, but she definitely saw them, so it definitely has mixed results.  It really isn't the job of the nominator to be chasing people down unless there is a huge break or a clarity problem.  If someone replies and offers support or comments, there is no reason they shouldn't have the page in their watchlist or at least check back, especially the experienced editors that are handling FAC.  Just be careful offering advice, though I do appreciate your concern and support.  You are talking like you've had an article already pass FAC. I thought for sure mine would pass, especially after it got so many supports...and we all see where that went.  There are also things you were willing to compromise on that I probably won't.  I took the time to make the actual image file on Photoshop of the Kent seal from a poor copy of the original; it's not just a file I saved from a website and uploaded to Wikipedia.  So, I'm going to need some concrete policy to show why the seal prevents it from being FA or how its presence in the article violates a policy.  The way FAC went, it didn't provide anything beyond one editor's personal interpretation of a policy.    "