The article was promoted by GrahamColm 09:37, 21 April 2012 [1].
Bal des Ardents ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because after sucking the sources dry, I think it's ready. It's about an odd event at the court of Charles VI of France in 1393. Thanks to Sarastro1 for the peer review, and thanks to Ceoil, Malleus Fatuorum, Riggr Mortis and Yomangani for help and encouragement. Note to delegates: spotchecks previously done here and here. Images are all earlier than 16th century. Truthkeeper ( talk) 21:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Comments Just a few things (only read the "Bal des Ardents and aftermath" section):
Other than these, this section was well written, so good job. Clay Clay Clay 06:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Supportwith nitpicks: I commented extensively at the peer review (wrong Sarastro named above, btw!!) and this already outstanding article has improved immensely since then. I have no hesitation in supporting. It is comprehensive, accessible in that it explains quite complicated ideas well for the general reader, and well written. Just a few comments and questions which do no affect my support.
Sarastro1 (
talk)
20:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
reply
The article looks really good to me. Just some minor issues:
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 09:37, 21 April 2012 [1].
Bal des Ardents ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because after sucking the sources dry, I think it's ready. It's about an odd event at the court of Charles VI of France in 1393. Thanks to Sarastro1 for the peer review, and thanks to Ceoil, Malleus Fatuorum, Riggr Mortis and Yomangani for help and encouragement. Note to delegates: spotchecks previously done here and here. Images are all earlier than 16th century. Truthkeeper ( talk) 21:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Comments Just a few things (only read the "Bal des Ardents and aftermath" section):
Other than these, this section was well written, so good job. Clay Clay Clay 06:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Supportwith nitpicks: I commented extensively at the peer review (wrong Sarastro named above, btw!!) and this already outstanding article has improved immensely since then. I have no hesitation in supporting. It is comprehensive, accessible in that it explains quite complicated ideas well for the general reader, and well written. Just a few comments and questions which do no affect my support.
Sarastro1 (
talk)
20:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
reply
The article looks really good to me. Just some minor issues:
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply