The article was promoted 00:09, 2 February 2008.
The Joseph Priestley House was the American home of Joseph Priestley and is a museum today. The article has had extensive helpful comments in both a peer review, and on its talk page. The talk archive chronicles the development of the article, which is jointly authored by Awadewit and Ruhrfisch, with useful comments and edits from several other editors. We have chosen not to have an infobox (one is not required) because it would force removal of at least one and possibly two of the images currently in the article. We believe the article meets all FAC criteria and the MOS guidelines (the previous nomination was by a user who had made no edits to the article, and was withdrawn quickly). Thanks in advance for any feedback, Awadewit | talk and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Support I have been waiting for "A" and "R" to finally nominate this. It is thoroughly researched and is well written. It is most certainly worthy of FA. Dincher ( talk) 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Support Awesome work. From my perspective coming from WP:NRHP, I appreciate its early incorporation of official NHL and NRHP definitive references/sources, and its fully covering NHL and NRHP aspects of the site. doncram ( talk) 01:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Support yup, looks excellent. To say more would be knit picking.-- Docg 12:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 00:09, 2 February 2008.
The Joseph Priestley House was the American home of Joseph Priestley and is a museum today. The article has had extensive helpful comments in both a peer review, and on its talk page. The talk archive chronicles the development of the article, which is jointly authored by Awadewit and Ruhrfisch, with useful comments and edits from several other editors. We have chosen not to have an infobox (one is not required) because it would force removal of at least one and possibly two of the images currently in the article. We believe the article meets all FAC criteria and the MOS guidelines (the previous nomination was by a user who had made no edits to the article, and was withdrawn quickly). Thanks in advance for any feedback, Awadewit | talk and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Support I have been waiting for "A" and "R" to finally nominate this. It is thoroughly researched and is well written. It is most certainly worthy of FA. Dincher ( talk) 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Support Awesome work. From my perspective coming from WP:NRHP, I appreciate its early incorporation of official NHL and NRHP definitive references/sources, and its fully covering NHL and NRHP aspects of the site. doncram ( talk) 01:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Support yup, looks excellent. To say more would be knit picking.-- Docg 12:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply