== Featured article nomination == 

 I have gone through all the concerns (well, a great deal of them, anyway) of the most recent peer review, including verifying all the references and standardizing their format. I think we're about ready for another FA nomination. Are there any outstanding concerns on anything? My only outstanding concern is the References section: it is clogged with a lot of the Cambridge Companion. However, I can't find a Wikipedia convention (or another featured article) that has an example like this: an article in which multiple essays are repeatedly cited from an edited collection of essays by separate authors. It would de-complexify (if that's a word) the References section's appearance if we could compress all those references down to one. What, then, would we do with the shortened footnotes citing the separate essays? That's my only concern… I am very excited about our FA prospects this time around! —