The article was promoted 03:07, 30 March 2008.
Nominators:
AndonicO
Grimhelm
Keilana
Bibliomaniac15
Anonymous Dissident
J-stan
This article has been the Tzatziki Squad collaboration for awhile, and it's finally ready for FAC. It's had a peer review, been thoroughly copyedited and referenced, and is quite comprehensive. (If any of you others want to put your 2¢ in, please do.) Ladies and gentlemen, I give you cannon. Keilana| Parlez ici 00:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The article is quite nicely written, but I have a few concerns with its present form:
In general, I would say that there's a dearth of core details—names, dates, places—and an over-use of examples detached from the main point; but perhaps I was just expecting a meatier article, and this is suitable for an introduction. Kirill 19:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments Some of the references are a little strange. Refs, 6 and 94 direct to Google and Amazon respectively. Refs 25, 27, 59 don't give the name of the publisher. Some of the books have ISBN numbers, other do not and shouldn't there be a p. before the page numbers? These points may have been covered above. In order to keep an open mind, I tend not to read other reviews at FAC before adding my two pennies worth.--
GrahamColm
Talk
14:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
<comments about browser problem moved to talk> SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 03:07, 30 March 2008.
Nominators:
AndonicO
Grimhelm
Keilana
Bibliomaniac15
Anonymous Dissident
J-stan
This article has been the Tzatziki Squad collaboration for awhile, and it's finally ready for FAC. It's had a peer review, been thoroughly copyedited and referenced, and is quite comprehensive. (If any of you others want to put your 2¢ in, please do.) Ladies and gentlemen, I give you cannon. Keilana| Parlez ici 00:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The article is quite nicely written, but I have a few concerns with its present form:
In general, I would say that there's a dearth of core details—names, dates, places—and an over-use of examples detached from the main point; but perhaps I was just expecting a meatier article, and this is suitable for an introduction. Kirill 19:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments Some of the references are a little strange. Refs, 6 and 94 direct to Google and Amazon respectively. Refs 25, 27, 59 don't give the name of the publisher. Some of the books have ISBN numbers, other do not and shouldn't there be a p. before the page numbers? These points may have been covered above. In order to keep an open mind, I tend not to read other reviews at FAC before adding my two pennies worth.--
GrahamColm
Talk
14:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
<comments about browser problem moved to talk> SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply