The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC) [1]. reply
Nefarious: Merchant of Souls ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because it has received a copyedit from a member of the Guild of Copyeditors, it has passed a good article nomination, and I believe that it meets the featured article criteria. Neelix ( talk) 03:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Image review
Neelix asked me for my thoughts (as I had supported the article earlier above) on your comments, Eddie, and I responded to him on my talk page. He asked if I'd copy them here. A couple of points:
Just a few thoughts.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 18:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Support. I have given this a fresh read-through and I now feel comfortable backing for FA. Well done Neelix. — Cliftonian (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from — Cliftonian (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply |
---|
I will copyedit and post comments as I go through this. A few initial comments:
I'll come back later and put more, and go on copyediting and so on. Well done so far. — Cliftonian (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply
More soon, hope this helps — Cliftonian (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply
That's all for now, hope this helps. I will continue this review another time — Cliftonian (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
That's all, I think. I hope this helps. Now leaning to support. — Cliftonian (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
|
Comments
Hope these points are useful. – Tim riley ( talk) 10:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Support – This is a shorter article than one is used to seeing at FAC (and none the worse for that after some of the interminable articles about, e.g., Bollywood films we have had up for FA) but as far as I can see it covers all relevant points adequately, and it is in good prose, has no conspicuous bias and is well illustrated and referenced. It seems to me to meet the FA criteria. Tim riley ( talk) 21:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note -- I realise a good deal of discussion has gone on re. breadth and quality of sourcing but I don't think I've seen a source review for formatting, so will request one at WT:FAC. On the subject of sourcing, I've read Eddie's comments with interest, but I think several other reviewers have provided arguments that rebut the concerns raised. I will however await the source review and any further comments from Cliftonian before considering promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 05:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The references all seem to be formatted correctly. All names are formatted as "Firstname Lastname", all dates are formatted the same way, templates are used to prevent many problems, and I see no spacing or punctuation errors. My five spotchecks reveal the statements fully supported without plagiarism. – Quadell ( talk) 19:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC) [1]. reply
Nefarious: Merchant of Souls ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because it has received a copyedit from a member of the Guild of Copyeditors, it has passed a good article nomination, and I believe that it meets the featured article criteria. Neelix ( talk) 03:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Image review
Neelix asked me for my thoughts (as I had supported the article earlier above) on your comments, Eddie, and I responded to him on my talk page. He asked if I'd copy them here. A couple of points:
Just a few thoughts.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 18:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Support. I have given this a fresh read-through and I now feel comfortable backing for FA. Well done Neelix. — Cliftonian (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from — Cliftonian (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply |
---|
I will copyedit and post comments as I go through this. A few initial comments:
I'll come back later and put more, and go on copyediting and so on. Well done so far. — Cliftonian (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply
More soon, hope this helps — Cliftonian (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply
That's all for now, hope this helps. I will continue this review another time — Cliftonian (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
That's all, I think. I hope this helps. Now leaning to support. — Cliftonian (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
|
Comments
Hope these points are useful. – Tim riley ( talk) 10:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Support – This is a shorter article than one is used to seeing at FAC (and none the worse for that after some of the interminable articles about, e.g., Bollywood films we have had up for FA) but as far as I can see it covers all relevant points adequately, and it is in good prose, has no conspicuous bias and is well illustrated and referenced. It seems to me to meet the FA criteria. Tim riley ( talk) 21:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note -- I realise a good deal of discussion has gone on re. breadth and quality of sourcing but I don't think I've seen a source review for formatting, so will request one at WT:FAC. On the subject of sourcing, I've read Eddie's comments with interest, but I think several other reviewers have provided arguments that rebut the concerns raised. I will however await the source review and any further comments from Cliftonian before considering promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 05:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The references all seem to be formatted correctly. All names are formatted as "Firstname Lastname", all dates are formatted the same way, templates are used to prevent many problems, and I see no spacing or punctuation errors. My five spotchecks reveal the statements fully supported without plagiarism. – Quadell ( talk) 19:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply