Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zanzibar Revolution/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 not promoted by Maralia 18:26, 15 February 2009 [1].
Zanzibar Revolution[edit]
Following on from my last (and first!) FA, Anglo-Zanzibar War, here is another Zanzibar related article which has gone through GA and the MilHist A-class processes and which I feel is of suitable quality for an FA. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did this go through PR? I'm finding grammatical and MOS problems. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 14:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think "almost unquestionably" means what you think it means. "Almost unquestionably" means that there is little doubt at the present time. I think you mean something like, "virtually unquestioned" or similar. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 14:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. Perhaps it did convey something different to what I had thought, I have changed it per you suggestion - Dumelow (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning Oppose someone please buy a good guide to grammar and mail it to MILHIST's A-Review folks, please. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 15:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has not been through PR, perhaps I should have sent it there first (I usually do so before I take my articles to GA). However I thought the prose was good enough for FA, it is as well sourced as I could make it and there were no MoS problems that I could see. If there are some grammatical errors that are causing you to oppose could you point them out so that I can fix them.
I have been through the article a few times recently and not found much.Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Off hand it looks as if the article could use a copyedit. A good article for sure, amazing progress since I asked the nominator to expand it but I would have recommended a peer review before this FA nomination. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the above comments it is cleat that this article is in need of another pair of eyes and so I am withdrawing this nom in order to get a peer review. Many thanks for the helpful comments guys. I am not sure what actions should be taken for withdrawing the article from the list so hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me will spot this and sort it out. Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.