The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 14:06, 25 August 2012 [1].
Philip Humber ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
When Humber threw his perfect game in April, it drew me to this article, which was in lousy shape. TonyTheTiger was drawn to it too. In an excellent collaboration, we performed a 5x expansion to promote the page for DYK, passed it through GA, and also obtained a peer review. Now, we're ready to co-nominate this article for FA. – Muboshgu ( talk) 15:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Comments: I don't like seeing FACs waiting a week or more for their first comments, so here are a few observations on the prose in the early sections - by no means a complete review, but hopefully this will kickstart this FAC:
I don't have time at the moment to go any further, but I'll keep an eye on progress. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose – Sorry, but I'm just seeing way too many issues after reading only the lead and first two body sections. I can see why Brian is having trouble with certain aspects of the article, and there are some subtle prose and MoS issues as well.
Giants2008 ( Talk) 23:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Overall, this is a lot of outstanding issues and I don't claim to have caught every issue. I wonder if at some point withdrawing and resubmitting the article after some more work would be the best course. It's not an easy decision, but I'm not convinced this can be improved to meet the FA prose standards in the timeframe of an FAC. Giants2008 ( Talk) 00:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 14:06, 25 August 2012 [1].
Philip Humber ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
When Humber threw his perfect game in April, it drew me to this article, which was in lousy shape. TonyTheTiger was drawn to it too. In an excellent collaboration, we performed a 5x expansion to promote the page for DYK, passed it through GA, and also obtained a peer review. Now, we're ready to co-nominate this article for FA. – Muboshgu ( talk) 15:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Comments: I don't like seeing FACs waiting a week or more for their first comments, so here are a few observations on the prose in the early sections - by no means a complete review, but hopefully this will kickstart this FAC:
I don't have time at the moment to go any further, but I'll keep an eye on progress. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose – Sorry, but I'm just seeing way too many issues after reading only the lead and first two body sections. I can see why Brian is having trouble with certain aspects of the article, and there are some subtle prose and MoS issues as well.
Giants2008 ( Talk) 23:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Overall, this is a lot of outstanding issues and I don't claim to have caught every issue. I wonder if at some point withdrawing and resubmitting the article after some more work would be the best course. It's not an easy decision, but I'm not convinced this can be improved to meet the FA prose standards in the timeframe of an FAC. Giants2008 ( Talk) 00:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC) reply