This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 03:02, 9 November 2011 (all wrong, a new nomination should have been submitted, begin cleanup to salvage this one). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:02, 9 November 2011 by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) (all wrong, a new nomination should have been submitted, begin cleanup to salvage this one)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)RAF Uxbridge
RAF Uxbridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Harrison49 (talk) 21:14, 24 October 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. Harrison49 (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These 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 (push to talk) 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. Nikkimaria (talk) 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 (push to talk) 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? Harrison49 (talk) 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Will mark as withdrawn and ask an admin to db-g6 the nom page.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, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Relisted following two week wait. Harrison49 (talk) 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? Crisco 1492 (talk) 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 {{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. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll look into that. Also, thanks for spotting the mistake with the Battle of Britain filming. I think it had been changed during a copyedit. Harrison49 (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)