The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC) [1]. reply
Robert Madgwick ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. Cla68 ( talk) 10:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Image check - all OK (PD-Australia, own work). Sources and authors provided (one unknown).
I'll take a look at this later but can you separate notes from the citations like Nostradamus? I just think it looks clearer and tidier. Retrieved dates aren't needed for books. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support. I have read the article twice, and support on prose. Suggestion: "Madgwick" appears more than 100 times in the article, at one place four times in three sentences. Can that be varied? I may have more suggestions but as a whole the article meets the standards for FA. In reply to the comments just above: the handling of explanatory notes and cites is a matter of personal preference, not FA criteria (and I don't read Dr. Blofeld to state otherwise), and I agree there is no need for accessdates on convenience weblinks to works in print. I would eliminate those links unless the website in use reproduces all relevant parts of the book, but that too is personal preference. Please review WP:HONORIFIC for use of "Sir"; it is not entirely clear to me, but "Sir" probably should not be in parens if used. Kablammo ( talk) 21:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done.
Closing comment -- I'm afraid that after remaining open six weeks this review has stalled, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 12:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC) [1]. reply
Robert Madgwick ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. Cla68 ( talk) 10:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Image check - all OK (PD-Australia, own work). Sources and authors provided (one unknown).
I'll take a look at this later but can you separate notes from the citations like Nostradamus? I just think it looks clearer and tidier. Retrieved dates aren't needed for books. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support. I have read the article twice, and support on prose. Suggestion: "Madgwick" appears more than 100 times in the article, at one place four times in three sentences. Can that be varied? I may have more suggestions but as a whole the article meets the standards for FA. In reply to the comments just above: the handling of explanatory notes and cites is a matter of personal preference, not FA criteria (and I don't read Dr. Blofeld to state otherwise), and I agree there is no need for accessdates on convenience weblinks to works in print. I would eliminate those links unless the website in use reproduces all relevant parts of the book, but that too is personal preference. Please review WP:HONORIFIC for use of "Sir"; it is not entirely clear to me, but "Sir" probably should not be in parens if used. Kablammo ( talk) 21:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done.
Closing comment -- I'm afraid that after remaining open six weeks this review has stalled, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 12:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply