The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 0:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because I do not believe it meets the following criteria:
The main editor has been very dismissive of these concerns, although he has addressed some areas of unreferenced claims on the lead, and items in the lead that were totally absent from the body of the article. The fact that these were there suggests a less than thorough process of inspection before it was raised to FA status. Kevin McE ( talk) 18:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
I think the nomination is ridiculous and the allegations absurd. This review is wholly without merit in my opinion and should be closed as soon as possible. The FAC was conducted by experienced editors, familiar with WP's standards, including SchroCat, Nick-D, Ceoil. Hchc2009, Brianboulton and Johnbod. I don't know what Kevin McE's agenda is, but I regard this review as frivolous, unjustifiable and contemptible. Tim riley talk 19:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
This nomination should be closed as out-of-process. Conversation on the article Talk page is ongoing and has been going only for a short time. This strikes me as a tantrum because the nominator isn't getting their way. FAR isn't a dispute resolution avenue. -- Laser brain (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
I agree with Tim and Andy. WP processes such as FAR should not be weaponised as a means of driving home a point. Brianboulton ( talk) 19:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Edit conflict.
If this is a joke, it is in poor taste. If it is not a joke, it is in worse. I am not sure what to add to Tim and Lb's comments. The use of language is indeed not "businesslike", and the article is the better for it: it is certainly engaging and in my opinion and that of the five editors who supported it at FAC only two years ago is of a professional standard. (Regular followers of recent FACs will know how picky I can be regarding use of language.) I can see a few things, both in the prose and more generally, which I wouldn't mind changing, but to suggest that it isn't of FA standard is (I paused here for some time trying to think of a more neutral word, but this one seems most appropriate) ridiculous. The nomination seems to cover several of the scenarios in WP:ATA. Suggest summary dismissal with prejudice. Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
I am very appreciative of the supportive comments above. As briefly as I can, my own thoughts are as follows:
The nominating editor has chosen to personalise this discussion by describing my responses as "very dismissive". Others can judge the fairness of that characterisation. On Chartwell, I have tried to do what I always try to do: to write accurate and interesting articles on significant subjects, and to engage with other editors interested in those subjects in a courteous and productive way. KJP1 ( talk) 21:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
It is evident that there is little interest here in creating anything properly encyclopaedic" was his latest edit summary. I have asked them to stop casting aspersions on other editors with such nonsense. - SchroCat ( talk) 08:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Coordinator comment - This nomination seems premature given that concerns were raised on the talk page only a few days ago, so I'm going to close this at this time. It can be renominated in future if concerns remain; however, all are advised to bear in mind that FAR is not a dispute resolution venue. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 0:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because I do not believe it meets the following criteria:
The main editor has been very dismissive of these concerns, although he has addressed some areas of unreferenced claims on the lead, and items in the lead that were totally absent from the body of the article. The fact that these were there suggests a less than thorough process of inspection before it was raised to FA status. Kevin McE ( talk) 18:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
I think the nomination is ridiculous and the allegations absurd. This review is wholly without merit in my opinion and should be closed as soon as possible. The FAC was conducted by experienced editors, familiar with WP's standards, including SchroCat, Nick-D, Ceoil. Hchc2009, Brianboulton and Johnbod. I don't know what Kevin McE's agenda is, but I regard this review as frivolous, unjustifiable and contemptible. Tim riley talk 19:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
This nomination should be closed as out-of-process. Conversation on the article Talk page is ongoing and has been going only for a short time. This strikes me as a tantrum because the nominator isn't getting their way. FAR isn't a dispute resolution avenue. -- Laser brain (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
I agree with Tim and Andy. WP processes such as FAR should not be weaponised as a means of driving home a point. Brianboulton ( talk) 19:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Edit conflict.
If this is a joke, it is in poor taste. If it is not a joke, it is in worse. I am not sure what to add to Tim and Lb's comments. The use of language is indeed not "businesslike", and the article is the better for it: it is certainly engaging and in my opinion and that of the five editors who supported it at FAC only two years ago is of a professional standard. (Regular followers of recent FACs will know how picky I can be regarding use of language.) I can see a few things, both in the prose and more generally, which I wouldn't mind changing, but to suggest that it isn't of FA standard is (I paused here for some time trying to think of a more neutral word, but this one seems most appropriate) ridiculous. The nomination seems to cover several of the scenarios in WP:ATA. Suggest summary dismissal with prejudice. Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
I am very appreciative of the supportive comments above. As briefly as I can, my own thoughts are as follows:
The nominating editor has chosen to personalise this discussion by describing my responses as "very dismissive". Others can judge the fairness of that characterisation. On Chartwell, I have tried to do what I always try to do: to write accurate and interesting articles on significant subjects, and to engage with other editors interested in those subjects in a courteous and productive way. KJP1 ( talk) 21:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
It is evident that there is little interest here in creating anything properly encyclopaedic" was his latest edit summary. I have asked them to stop casting aspersions on other editors with such nonsense. - SchroCat ( talk) 08:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Coordinator comment - This nomination seems premature given that concerns were raised on the talk page only a few days ago, so I'm going to close this at this time. It can be renominated in future if concerns remain; however, all are advised to bear in mind that FAR is not a dispute resolution venue. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC) reply