Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Webley Revolver

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 18:03, 4 June 2007.

---

Webley Revolver

Self-Nomination; This article has been expanded, clarified, re-written, cleaned up, and exhaustively cited since the Previous FAC nomination, and I'm more than satisfied that this article is now definitely FA material as a result. --Commander Zulu 13:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Very detailed article, covers the whole history of the Webley. Looks good with many very nice pictures. Every important part and detail is cited, and as a whole very readable.--LWF 14:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose with a few comments:
  • "adopted December 9th, 1913" - the date is not formatted in accordance with WP:MOSDATE.
  • "had not been completed with hostilities began" - "with" should be "when" instead.
  • "several accessories were developed for the Mk VI, including a bayonet (made from a converted French Pritchard bayonet)[9], a speedloader device ("Prideaux Device")[10], and a stock allowing for the revolver to be converted into a carbine" - I think it would be helpful to link bayonet and carbine here.
  • "the .455 calibre Webley Mk VI being especially popular with New Zealand troops fighting in Africa and the Pacific because of the effectiveness and proven stopping power of the round." - why is this (marked as) uncited?
  • "Royal Singaporean Police" - weird piped link which is probably inaccurate. I've never heard of Singapore's police force described as "Royal Singaporean Police", not even when Singapore was in British hands.

I was going to support, but cannot while there are unsourced statements in the article. Resurgent insurgent 16:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • Oops, I changed someone else's comment [1] when saying the above. Sorry for this mistake! Resurgent insurgent 23:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Looks like all have been quietly fixed, changing to support. Resurgent insurgent 06:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Meets the criteria, well done. Carom 16:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very nice job with the article. I especially appreciate the logical order, the history by time/usage, and the great job with the reference section. Well done! Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 19:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support: Well written article. However, please remove the use of Bold (through out the article) as it makes it difficult to read. I am not sure what WP:MOS states, but i think there is an over-use of bold letters in the article. Kalyan 14:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply: The Bolding is, I feel, necessary to differentiate the various marks and models of Webley Revolvers at a glance. Without the bolding it makes the article just that bit harder to follow, IMHO. FWIW, many other gun articles on WP seem to follow the same pattern (ie, bolding derivative or subsequent marks/models within the same article). --Commander Zulu 06:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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.