Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bath School disaster

Bath School disaster

This article was prepared in conjunction with Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan and has had a peer review. This is the first request for featured article status. Main page placement is being sought for the May 18, 2006 anniversary date. Comments welcome. Jtmichcock 14:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support comprehensive article, complete history of the event Gnangarra 14:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This sentence could use some fixing: "Disgruntled Bath Consolidated school board member Andrew Kehoe, upset by a property tax levy to fund the school building he blamed for putting his farm into foreclosure, first killed his wife and set his farm buildings on fire." First of all, it's too long. Secondly, the structure of the sentence implies that the school building itself (rather than the tax levy) was the cause of the foreclosure. I think it should be broken into 3 sentences: Who he was, why he was mad, and what he did. Nice article, though. I will support if the wording is fixed up a bit. Kafziel 15:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I restructured the lede per your suggestion. I am also looking at other sections to see if some of the sentences can be broken up. Jtmichcock 16:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above changes. Kafziel 16:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great article! Well referenced, good illustrations and interesting to read. I learned about something I had never even heard of before this article! Check-Six 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well referenced indeed! Hillhead15 09:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well done, and I never heard of this before. Rlevse 13:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I remember reading this when it was two paragraphs long! It's come a long way since then. Good Job! -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 03:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As close to a slam-dunk as you'll find here. Excellent balance of details. Syntactically and grammatically, I sensed no hiccups in reading. Marskell 09:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I'd never heard of this before, but the article gave a pretty comprehensive explanation of the events. Very well writen. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 07:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, well-referenced and complete. -- user:zanimum
Support What a madman... Clean read, seems to be good on all points. References appear comprehensive; inline citations are not used to distraction. It's a fairly long article, and things can always be edited down, but in this case, I didn't find it overly detailed, so that didn't bother me. --Tsavage 22:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]