Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pontiac's Rebellion

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:25, 7 May 2007.

Pontiac's Rebellion[edit]

Self-nomination: Here's a topic you read about in history class but have probably forgotten what the hell was all about. I've been working on this on-and-off for about 2.5 years, taking extra time because important books on the topic were published as I wrote. I think it's ready now. A recent WikiProject Military history review is here; an old peer review, written back when God was a boy, is here. I thank those who have helped copyedit the article over the years, and User:WBardwin, who has essentially been the Executive Producer. Hope you like the article; I look forward to your comments. —Kevin Myers 04:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support They certainly never taught this topic in any history lesson I attended, so I can't agree or disagree with the tone of the content, but the formatting and writing meets FA guidelines as far as I can tell.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 06:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, thoroughly excellent article in every respect. Kirill Lokshin 12:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pupster21 Talk To Me 12:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great article Orbitalwow 12:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support As mentioned in its A-Class nomination page, spectacular article. Incredibly well written. I've no problem with this being a feature article.
Cam 20:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article is so good, it makes me embarassed about every article I have ever worked on. If there were a category higher than "Featured Article" this one would be the first in it. I cannot stop gushing. Really, this was an enjoyable read, well referenced, I mean, really. This is just too good. Congrats!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really, a great article indeed. DS 01:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Support. A lovely article, but one thing has stopped me supporting it wholeheartedly. There doesn't seem to be an inline citation for the following quote, in the Small forts taken section: "they were Obliged to do it by the other Nations." -- Avenue 09:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have known that 98 footnotes weren't quite enough. ;-) The cite for that quote was in the next sentence; I've moved it to the proper place. Thanks for catching that. —Kevin Myers 13:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'm now happy to support it. -- Avenue 01:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Orbitalwow and DS; the format of the notes is different than what I tend to see, but I suppose that's arbitrary to some extent. Cliff smith 00:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! For the sake of simplicity and for what I hope is a professional look, I always follow the Chicago Manual of Style for footnotes, which is (mostly) standard for published professional history. Sometimes I think I'm the one of the few Wikipedians who doesn't have a personalized, idiosyncratic footnoting style. ;-) —Kevin Myers 00:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Brilliant article deserves FA class. Kyriakos 03:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, might even slide into the brilliant prose category. --Phoenix (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well-written article, great job guys! Zelmerszoetrop 23:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A very nice article, and it's good to see some Chicago-style referencing where it's appropriate. Most articles don't do it because in 98 refs they'll use 70+ sources, but when the balance is a little better it looks much more professional to do it like this. --PresN 04:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.