The article was promoted by Ian Rose ( talk) 07:29, 19 July 2014 ( diff).
This article is about the Falkland Islands, an archipelago in the South Atlantic, proximate to the eastern coast of South America. The article is written in British English. The article is highly controversial, but editors from all sides of the spectrum have worked together in order to create what is one of the best country articles in Wikipedia (We hope the reviewers agree). The article has had a recent peer review and, since its conclusion, no major changes have taken place for quite some time (the only recent issue were dead links to UK government information, but those were promptly fixed). If the reviewers find any problems with the article, whether major or minor, we hope that they give us a chance to fix those mistakes prior to them casting a decision on whether to pass or decline this FAC. Thank you for your time. Regards.-- MarshalN20 Talk 20:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I've been a bit caught up in off-wiki life and only just had time to have another look over the article. Guys, thank you; I think you've done a brilliant job on this article and made it into a very interesting piece. Reading it now it comes across as far more informative about all aspects of the islands' story. The history section in particular is superb; I'm afraid I really did think it looked like a list of territorial changes originally, but now it's an excellent piece of writing with a clear view of the islands' past. I think this FAC has been well worth it (I hope you think so too). Very happy to Support. Ranger Steve Talk 12:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Ranger Steve (talk) |
---|
I’ve just been reading up on the Battle of the Falklands and came across this FAC. I’m going to be offline for a few days, but will give a review when I get back. In the meantime though, I have some observations that could help improve the article:
Regards, Ranger Steve Talk 10:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Don't worry, I'm not expecting you to add to the article in order to make it longer. However, I am looking for balance, and I think it's a bit lacking in this article. I appreciate you've gone for a shorter 'summary' style article, but the problem I see is that the sovereignty dispute content looks more like it's come from a long model. I realise that in most sources, the sovereignty is the main focus of attention, but I don't think that should mean this article places excessive weight on it, whilst leaving other sections under-represented. I'm afraid I can't support the article with its current weighting. History section:
Sovereignty Dispute
Geography
More to follow as I work my way down. Cheers, Ranger Steve Talk 12:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply
|
Support My comments are now all addressed. Nice work to MarshalN20 and all the other editors involved in developing this article to its current standard. Nick-D ( talk) 11:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Nick-D (talk) |
---|
It's good to see that this article has been developed to a high standard, but I think it needs a fair bit of additional work to reach FA level. I have the following comments:
Nick, your review is much appreciated.
I'll address and/or respond each of your points as I go through them. I will save my answers in this page every so often, but this does not mean I am ignoring the other suggestions (I may need to take breaks here and there).
Nick-D, WCM added material into the history section. I think we have addressed everything you recommended. What do you think, yay or nay for FA support? Regards.-- MarshalN20 Talk 02:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC) reply Sorry for the delays. From a quick check of the overall diffs my above comments are addressed, but I have some new ones on the new material:
|
Source review - spotchecks not done
That's about it. I'm a support once these are sorted.
hamiltonstone (
talk) 02:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from hamiltonstone (talk) |
---|
Comment from Hamiltonstone. Generally excellent article.
Thanks for that. It is better now.
That's about it. I'm a support
|
Resolved comments from Andrew Gray (talk) |
---|
A few
Incidentally, let me know if you need any lookups from the Falkland Islands Journal - I have a full run in the library. Andrew Gray ( talk) 18:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Andrew Gray: All suggestions were addressed. Thank you very much for the improvements! What do you think, support yay or nay?-- MarshalN20 Talk 14:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC) reply
|
Neat article but it has a couple of issues:
Nergaal ( talk) 13:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Note -- I can see above that you've pinged RangerSteve re. your responses to his comments. Has anyone completed an image review? If not, pls list a request at the top of WT:FAC
I stumbled here from an FAC of my own, and thought I'd comment!
All in all, a good read! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 05:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Now that the review has been stable for a couple of days, I've walked through the discussions above and I believe we have consensus to promote, not so much because the supportive comments outnumber the voice of opposition, but rather because I think the objections have been satisfactorily answered and/or actioned. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose ( talk) 07:29, 19 July 2014 ( diff).
This article is about the Falkland Islands, an archipelago in the South Atlantic, proximate to the eastern coast of South America. The article is written in British English. The article is highly controversial, but editors from all sides of the spectrum have worked together in order to create what is one of the best country articles in Wikipedia (We hope the reviewers agree). The article has had a recent peer review and, since its conclusion, no major changes have taken place for quite some time (the only recent issue were dead links to UK government information, but those were promptly fixed). If the reviewers find any problems with the article, whether major or minor, we hope that they give us a chance to fix those mistakes prior to them casting a decision on whether to pass or decline this FAC. Thank you for your time. Regards.-- MarshalN20 Talk 20:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I've been a bit caught up in off-wiki life and only just had time to have another look over the article. Guys, thank you; I think you've done a brilliant job on this article and made it into a very interesting piece. Reading it now it comes across as far more informative about all aspects of the islands' story. The history section in particular is superb; I'm afraid I really did think it looked like a list of territorial changes originally, but now it's an excellent piece of writing with a clear view of the islands' past. I think this FAC has been well worth it (I hope you think so too). Very happy to Support. Ranger Steve Talk 12:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Ranger Steve (talk) |
---|
I’ve just been reading up on the Battle of the Falklands and came across this FAC. I’m going to be offline for a few days, but will give a review when I get back. In the meantime though, I have some observations that could help improve the article:
Regards, Ranger Steve Talk 10:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Don't worry, I'm not expecting you to add to the article in order to make it longer. However, I am looking for balance, and I think it's a bit lacking in this article. I appreciate you've gone for a shorter 'summary' style article, but the problem I see is that the sovereignty dispute content looks more like it's come from a long model. I realise that in most sources, the sovereignty is the main focus of attention, but I don't think that should mean this article places excessive weight on it, whilst leaving other sections under-represented. I'm afraid I can't support the article with its current weighting. History section:
Sovereignty Dispute
Geography
More to follow as I work my way down. Cheers, Ranger Steve Talk 12:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply
|
Support My comments are now all addressed. Nice work to MarshalN20 and all the other editors involved in developing this article to its current standard. Nick-D ( talk) 11:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Nick-D (talk) |
---|
It's good to see that this article has been developed to a high standard, but I think it needs a fair bit of additional work to reach FA level. I have the following comments:
Nick, your review is much appreciated.
I'll address and/or respond each of your points as I go through them. I will save my answers in this page every so often, but this does not mean I am ignoring the other suggestions (I may need to take breaks here and there).
Nick-D, WCM added material into the history section. I think we have addressed everything you recommended. What do you think, yay or nay for FA support? Regards.-- MarshalN20 Talk 02:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC) reply Sorry for the delays. From a quick check of the overall diffs my above comments are addressed, but I have some new ones on the new material:
|
Source review - spotchecks not done
That's about it. I'm a support once these are sorted.
hamiltonstone (
talk) 02:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from hamiltonstone (talk) |
---|
Comment from Hamiltonstone. Generally excellent article.
Thanks for that. It is better now.
That's about it. I'm a support
|
Resolved comments from Andrew Gray (talk) |
---|
A few
Incidentally, let me know if you need any lookups from the Falkland Islands Journal - I have a full run in the library. Andrew Gray ( talk) 18:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Andrew Gray: All suggestions were addressed. Thank you very much for the improvements! What do you think, support yay or nay?-- MarshalN20 Talk 14:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC) reply
|
Neat article but it has a couple of issues:
Nergaal ( talk) 13:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Note -- I can see above that you've pinged RangerSteve re. your responses to his comments. Has anyone completed an image review? If not, pls list a request at the top of WT:FAC
I stumbled here from an FAC of my own, and thought I'd comment!
All in all, a good read! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 05:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Now that the review has been stable for a couple of days, I've walked through the discussions above and I believe we have consensus to promote, not so much because the supportive comments outnumber the voice of opposition, but rather because I think the objections have been satisfactorily answered and/or actioned. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC) reply