The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:28, 12 September 2011 [1].
Ionian Islands under Venetian rule ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. Plus its Peer Review has been archived. Marcofran ( talk) 13:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Question - the peer review link on the article talk page is appearing as a red link; could you provide the correct link to the peer review? Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Oppose - I appreciate the work you've put into this article, but I don't feel it currently meets the FA criteria. You might consider putting it through WP:GAN first. Some specific issues:
Copyscape checks - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm ( talk) 21:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Oppose I saw this article on the Guild of Copyeditors' requests page. Firstly as a procedural point, all copyediting and reviews should be finished before FAC nomination. A quick reading shows two things: that the article has been well-researched using quality sources, but also that it is far from the rounded product expected at FAC. Parts are difficult to understand; and some sentences are laboured with sub-clauses that trip over themselves.
Thirdly, the extensive bibliography does not appear to be completely cited in the references. Those works which are not directly cited should be moved to a further reading section. Given the extensive academic sources avaliable I also feel that this article is too short, some sections are very bitty. The "Background" sub-section in the "History" section could be deleted. I'm going to copy-edit it now, and reccomend that a history expert be found to have a look at it, then a nomination at GAN, both would help to develop the article further. I want to stress that it is a strong article with good prospects, and clearly lots of hard-work has gone into it. However, it does not yet reach the "finished, complete, outstanding" standard of a FA. Keep up the good work. Best, -- Ktlynch ( talk) 13:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:28, 12 September 2011 [1].
Ionian Islands under Venetian rule ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. Plus its Peer Review has been archived. Marcofran ( talk) 13:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Question - the peer review link on the article talk page is appearing as a red link; could you provide the correct link to the peer review? Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Oppose - I appreciate the work you've put into this article, but I don't feel it currently meets the FA criteria. You might consider putting it through WP:GAN first. Some specific issues:
Copyscape checks - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm ( talk) 21:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Oppose I saw this article on the Guild of Copyeditors' requests page. Firstly as a procedural point, all copyediting and reviews should be finished before FAC nomination. A quick reading shows two things: that the article has been well-researched using quality sources, but also that it is far from the rounded product expected at FAC. Parts are difficult to understand; and some sentences are laboured with sub-clauses that trip over themselves.
Thirdly, the extensive bibliography does not appear to be completely cited in the references. Those works which are not directly cited should be moved to a further reading section. Given the extensive academic sources avaliable I also feel that this article is too short, some sections are very bitty. The "Background" sub-section in the "History" section could be deleted. I'm going to copy-edit it now, and reccomend that a history expert be found to have a look at it, then a nomination at GAN, both would help to develop the article further. I want to stress that it is a strong article with good prospects, and clearly lots of hard-work has gone into it. However, it does not yet reach the "finished, complete, outstanding" standard of a FA. Keep up the good work. Best, -- Ktlynch ( talk) 13:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC) reply