The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:29, 27 June 2011 [1].
English National Opera ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
The English National Opera is one of two of London's principal opera companies. It has a long and brave history of making opera accessible, and I think it deserves the best quality article possible. This article has had the benefit of a very thorough peer review for which I am grateful to all contributors. I believe it is now up to FA standard and ready for consideration as an FAC. – Tim riley ( talk) 16:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Not for the first time I am grateful for your eagle eye for detail – many thanks. Glad to know your thoughts on the third and last points above. Tim riley ( talk) 05:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Support: I gave this a lot of attention at peer review, as did several other reviewers, and between us the article had a thorough going-over. However, if you dig deep enough...Here are a few trivial points that I picked up on my latest reading. They can easily be fixed, and I see no reason to withhold support. A very fine article, full of information of great interest to opera-lovers.
That's all. Brianboulton ( talk) 00:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Support by Ruhrfisch - I was also involved with the peer review, where all my concerns were addressed. I have one quibble, which do not detract from my support.
Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Image review by Ruhrfisch - I found the image of the Messiah performance on Flickr and uploaded it, so someone else might want to double check its licence (Flickrreviewbot was OK with it). All of the images in the article are free, though several do not use the standard templates for their source and other information. Compare the format of File:Royal Opera House and ballerina.jpg (with a template showing Description, Date, Source, Author and Permission) to the way that information is presented in File:London-coliseum.jpg Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Most grateful to Ruhrfisch for the support (and the image). Miller picture moved left as recommended. Tim riley ( talk) 15:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Support with regard to Criterion 1a. This is clearly a highly polished article, which has been thoroughly prepared for promotion. Graham Colm ( talk) 19:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC) reply
There is some inconsistency in year ranges: you generally and correctly use xxxx–xx, but occasionally use xxxx–xxxx. Please review. I also fixed some wayward p, vs. p., and removed a space from a page range. Minor stuff. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:29, 27 June 2011 [1].
English National Opera ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
The English National Opera is one of two of London's principal opera companies. It has a long and brave history of making opera accessible, and I think it deserves the best quality article possible. This article has had the benefit of a very thorough peer review for which I am grateful to all contributors. I believe it is now up to FA standard and ready for consideration as an FAC. – Tim riley ( talk) 16:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Not for the first time I am grateful for your eagle eye for detail – many thanks. Glad to know your thoughts on the third and last points above. Tim riley ( talk) 05:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Support: I gave this a lot of attention at peer review, as did several other reviewers, and between us the article had a thorough going-over. However, if you dig deep enough...Here are a few trivial points that I picked up on my latest reading. They can easily be fixed, and I see no reason to withhold support. A very fine article, full of information of great interest to opera-lovers.
That's all. Brianboulton ( talk) 00:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Support by Ruhrfisch - I was also involved with the peer review, where all my concerns were addressed. I have one quibble, which do not detract from my support.
Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Image review by Ruhrfisch - I found the image of the Messiah performance on Flickr and uploaded it, so someone else might want to double check its licence (Flickrreviewbot was OK with it). All of the images in the article are free, though several do not use the standard templates for their source and other information. Compare the format of File:Royal Opera House and ballerina.jpg (with a template showing Description, Date, Source, Author and Permission) to the way that information is presented in File:London-coliseum.jpg Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Most grateful to Ruhrfisch for the support (and the image). Miller picture moved left as recommended. Tim riley ( talk) 15:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Support with regard to Criterion 1a. This is clearly a highly polished article, which has been thoroughly prepared for promotion. Graham Colm ( talk) 19:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC) reply
There is some inconsistency in year ranges: you generally and correctly use xxxx–xx, but occasionally use xxxx–xxxx. Please review. I also fixed some wayward p, vs. p., and removed a space from a page range. Minor stuff. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC) reply