I see there's been a suggestion to split the article into two, one for each magazine. I think that would be less useful for the reader -- the publication history section would be almost identical for both, for a start. I did consider it when I wrote the article, but it seemed better this way. If anyone disagrees, I would suggest pinging the FAC reviewers for their opinion since they did not raise this concern at the time of the FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Speedy close—This featured article is fine as it is. A split would not improve it. I can imagine no justification for a split. Why are we wasting resources here? The proposer even failed to open the conversation. —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
