Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fourth International

Fourth International[edit]

Work by a number of contributors from different political backgrounds has produced a balanced article on this Trotskyist organisation coupled with more information on it than is available elsewhere on the web. It has recently received a peer review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Fourth International/archive2); all the contributors to the peer review have agreed that it is now ready to be put forward as a featured article candidate. This article was a candidate back in September 2004, and the objections raised then have also since been addressed. Warofdreams talk 00:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very Interesting Article. Comment A few sentances in the lead were potential non-NPOV so I added ^{[citation needed]} tags. With the references as well, there are some wikilinks to Authors. For the Authors where their aren't articles...they should be either all red links all no link at all. Not some and somewithout. Todd661 11:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've referenced two of the three statements you tagged. The authors referenced without articles are linked because they are notable; those who are unlikely to merit an article aren't linked. I've written a couple of articles on those who were redlinks, and may write some more soon. Warofdreams talk 02:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditional~~ Support. Nice article, and informative. I'll support if you make year-links consistent. Right now, some lone years are linked (e.g. 1945), and some are not (e.g. 1946). Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Partial dates indicates that years shouldn't be linked unless they are part of a date (e.g. June 1 1947), although not everyone agrees. But randomly linking some and not others in not ideal. But hey, these are nitpicks. It's a great article, impecably sourced, well-writen, and deserves to be featured. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all the lone year dates, except for the first mention of 1938, which as the year of foundation, seems particularly important. If you'd like that removed as well, go ahead, but I think it might be a useful link. Warofdreams talk 17:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it might. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would like to support, but the references, while extensive, are limited alomst entirly to non-academic sources. I would very much like to see some academic journals and books among the references.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The references do include several from Revolutionary History and What Next?, which are the closest things to academic journals in the field. There may be some more general political works which could reference a few of the more general points in the article - I'll see if I can locate anything - but it is unlikely that it would be possible to reference the detail in the article from these. Warofdreams talk 03:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you will find that ~300 articles interesting :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link; it may prove useful, but as I say, almost everything is either already used as a reference or only mentions the Fourth International obliquely. That said, there are a couple which might be useful sources - I will search through. Warofdreams talk 03:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not perfect, but definitely among Wikipedia's best. - Taxman ^Talk 23:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's clear that a lot of work has gone into developing this page. The comments above are also very useful, and should be followed to help improve the page further. --Duncan 08:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All the concerns from the peer review have been addressed, and although it can still improve, it is solid FA standard. Yomangani ^talk 12:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]