The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 12:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC) [1]. reply
I would love to see this article become featured status. Thank you all in advance for reviewing and making sure that this article meets the criteria! haha169 ( talk) 03:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Image review
Thank you for your image review. Please let me know if you need anything else! -- haha169 ( talk) 01:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Weak oppose Oppose, on prose grounds. Some specific points from the first couple of sections are below, and then a couple of items from later in the article to indicate that the problems are throughout. There is a lot of good material here but it needs a pass through from a good writer who is unfamiliar with the material and hence will spot places where the writing is disconnected or out of chronological order.
This is where I stopped reading in detail. A couple more points chosen at random from later in the article (this is not a complete list of problems):
I'm sure you can fix the points I've raised above, but I think the whole article needs to be copyedited. It's not in terrible shape, but the prose is not yet at FA level, I'm afraid. -- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- This has been open almost eight weeks without achieving consensus to promote so I'll be archiving it shortly; it can be renominated after a minimum of two weeks has passed and I suggest following Mike's advice to seek a further copyedit by an uninvolved party during that time. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 12:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 12:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC) [1]. reply
I would love to see this article become featured status. Thank you all in advance for reviewing and making sure that this article meets the criteria! haha169 ( talk) 03:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Image review
Thank you for your image review. Please let me know if you need anything else! -- haha169 ( talk) 01:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Weak oppose Oppose, on prose grounds. Some specific points from the first couple of sections are below, and then a couple of items from later in the article to indicate that the problems are throughout. There is a lot of good material here but it needs a pass through from a good writer who is unfamiliar with the material and hence will spot places where the writing is disconnected or out of chronological order.
This is where I stopped reading in detail. A couple more points chosen at random from later in the article (this is not a complete list of problems):
I'm sure you can fix the points I've raised above, but I think the whole article needs to be copyedited. It's not in terrible shape, but the prose is not yet at FA level, I'm afraid. -- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Closing comment -- This has been open almost eight weeks without achieving consensus to promote so I'll be archiving it shortly; it can be renominated after a minimum of two weeks has passed and I suggest following Mike's advice to seek a further copyedit by an uninvolved party during that time. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 12:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply