| Revision as of 03:02, 9 November 2011 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,129 edits all wrong, a new nomination should have been submitted, begin cleanup to salvage this one← Previous edit |
Revision as of 03:03, 9 November 2011 edit undoSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,129 edits fix, should have been a new nominationNext edit → |
| Line 5: |
Line 5: |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Please don't edit anything above here. Be sure to include your reasons for nominating below. --> |
|
<!-- Please don't edit anything above here. Be sure to include your reasons for nominating below. --> |
|
:<small>''Nominator(s): ] (]) 21:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)''</small> |
|
:<small>''Nominator(s): ] (]) 22:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
⚫ |
:: ] (]) 03:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it has come a long way since it received Good Article status in April, and meets the FA criteria. ] (]) 21:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Support''' on prose per ]. are my edits. I copyedited this yesterday, and the comments I left on the article's talk page have been resolved. I've checked the nom's edits since then. - Dank (]) 22:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Procedural close''', unfortunately - the nominator has a nom further down the page that's only a few days old, and I don't see that he has delegate permission to have a second open, as is required by the FAC instructions. ] (]) 02:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Agreed, thanks Nikki, and thanks to Malleus for alerting me to this. One at a time at FAC, Harrison, unless the delegates say otherwise. - Dank (]) 02:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Sorry about that. I've requested the Ickenham nomination to be closed to allow for further improvements to be made. Once it is closed, could this nomination be reopened for consideration? ] (]) 10:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Will mark as withdrawn and ask an admin to db-g6 the nom page. Thanks for the heads up, ] (]) 13:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
{{FACClosed|withdrawn}} ] (]) 13:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Relisted''' following two week wait. ] (]) 22:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support'''', based on prose and thoroughness of referencing (spotchecks not done). However, I noticed an issue with "... the 1969 film Battle of Britain were '''photographed''' in the 11 Group Operations Room, ..." Photographed seems odd as it implies that they were stills; if it was actual film, why not "shot" instead? ] (]) 23:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
*'''Support'''', based on prose and thoroughness of referencing (spotchecks not done). However, I noticed an issue with "... the 1969 film Battle of Britain were '''photographed''' in the 11 Group Operations Room, ..." Photographed seems odd as it implies that they were stills; if it was actual film, why not "shot" instead? ] (]) 23:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
:Also, as a suggestion, perhaps making the short references linked to the correct entry in the bibliography using something like {{t|harv}} family of templates would make more it user-friendly. Citation style, as long as it is consistent, isn't a criteria so this is just a suggestion. ] (]) 23:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
:Also, as a suggestion, perhaps making the short references linked to the correct entry in the bibliography using something like {{t|harv}} family of templates would make more it user-friendly. Citation style, as long as it is consistent, isn't a criteria so this is just a suggestion. ] (]) 23:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |