The article was promoted by User:GrahamColm 10:33, 10 February 2013 [1].
I am nominating this for featured article because it's lookin' pretty darn spiffy. It's had a good workout at Wikipedia:Peer review/Canis Minor/archive1 and got a good run at its good article nom too. Thanks all. So, me and Keilana are here and waiting to fix stuff to make it perfickt. Have at it. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
NB: A wikicup nomination. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Image check - all OK (CC), sources and authors provided. Quick comment:
Support and comments Just two queries
Source review - spotchecks not done
Support Comment (temporary) - another fine constellation article. Remaining suggestions have been addressed (did some CEs and minor tweaks).
GermanJoe (
talk) 16:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
reply
Support I've reread the article now and am happy it meets the FA criteria. The prose reads more smoothly, and Keilana's additions have made the text more interesting (to me). Just one small thing: can we include page numbers and publisher locations in citations 61 & 75?
Sasata (
talk) 07:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. I'm finding problems that indicates the above supporters haven't examined the article with the thoroughness required for FAC-level scrutiny (sorry guys). Additionally, the last point I've raised suggests to me a closer audit of the sources/spotcheck would be beneficial. Have only gone through half of the article; will be back with more comments later.
Sasata (
talk) 19:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
reply
Please see WP:FAC instructions-- "done" templates removed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Support (again, all listed points improved), did some more polishing and have a few remaining minor issues:
The article was promoted by User:GrahamColm 10:33, 10 February 2013 [1].
I am nominating this for featured article because it's lookin' pretty darn spiffy. It's had a good workout at Wikipedia:Peer review/Canis Minor/archive1 and got a good run at its good article nom too. Thanks all. So, me and Keilana are here and waiting to fix stuff to make it perfickt. Have at it. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
NB: A wikicup nomination. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Image check - all OK (CC), sources and authors provided. Quick comment:
Support and comments Just two queries
Source review - spotchecks not done
Support Comment (temporary) - another fine constellation article. Remaining suggestions have been addressed (did some CEs and minor tweaks).
GermanJoe (
talk) 16:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
reply
Support I've reread the article now and am happy it meets the FA criteria. The prose reads more smoothly, and Keilana's additions have made the text more interesting (to me). Just one small thing: can we include page numbers and publisher locations in citations 61 & 75?
Sasata (
talk) 07:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. I'm finding problems that indicates the above supporters haven't examined the article with the thoroughness required for FAC-level scrutiny (sorry guys). Additionally, the last point I've raised suggests to me a closer audit of the sources/spotcheck would be beneficial. Have only gone through half of the article; will be back with more comments later.
Sasata (
talk) 19:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
reply
Please see WP:FAC instructions-- "done" templates removed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Support (again, all listed points improved), did some more polishing and have a few remaining minor issues: