Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Issy Smith: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
reply to Miwanya and to SoLando |
Roger Davies (talk | contribs) →Issy Smith: Of appropriate length |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
::Indeed, Woodym555. Could you elaborate, Mlwanya? There is no established minimum size; if such a standard existed, it is certain that it wouldn't be strictly enforced if an FAC was demonstrably comprehensive and factually accurate (which this article is). Irrespective of size, the article does meet [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria|FA criterion]], 1b and 2a being most pertinennt to your opposition. There have been numerous examples of relatively short articles attaining FA status, such as [[Hurricane Ismael]] and [[Hurricane Irene (2005)]]. [[User:SoLando|SoLando]] ([[User talk:SoLando|Talk]]) 21:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
::Indeed, Woodym555. Could you elaborate, Mlwanya? There is no established minimum size; if such a standard existed, it is certain that it wouldn't be strictly enforced if an FAC was demonstrably comprehensive and factually accurate (which this article is). Irrespective of size, the article does meet [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria|FA criterion]], 1b and 2a being most pertinennt to your opposition. There have been numerous examples of relatively short articles attaining FA status, such as [[Hurricane Ismael]] and [[Hurricane Irene (2005)]]. [[User:SoLando|SoLando]] ([[User talk:SoLando|Talk]]) 21:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::There is no mimimum size. As long as the article is demonstrably comprehensive, it meets the criteria. Checking through the sources available, it is clear that this is a comprehensive biography of the life of [[Issy Smith]]. [[User:Woodym555|Woodym555]] 22:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
:::There is no mimimum size. As long as the article is demonstrably comprehensive, it meets the criteria. Checking through the sources available, it is clear that this is a comprehensive biography of the life of [[Issy Smith]]. [[User:Woodym555|Woodym555]] 22:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::Given the paucity of original material, I suggest criterion 4 applies: "of an appropriate length ... without going into unnecessary detail". --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small> D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|''TALK'']]</sup> 22:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 22:49, 26 September 2007
This article is about an obscure yet highly notable subject. The primary editor, SoLando, has done an outstanding job in marshalling very limited reliable source material into an interesting, tightly-written, thoroughly-researched, comprehensive, and well-referenced piece. It became an A-Class article earlier today with unanimous unconditional support. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support (Disclosure: I have made some minor contributions to this article.) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support looks good, all the I's are dotted and all the t's crossed. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support. An interesting article that meets the criteria. Cla68 00:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support I was one of the 4 peer reviewers of the article and also one of the A-Class reviewers who were impressed with the quality and direction of the prose. I have gone and done a few little WP:MOS fixes such as WP:DASH and WP:MOSNUM with regards to some of the dates. I have only a couple of minor points? Why spoil the article with one red link? ;) make a stub if you please. Also the one sentence that i had a slight query with was the sentence "Smith attempted politics". (Para 2 of Legacy) Could it not be Smith attempted to enter politics or Smith tried to enter the political arena? Something to that effect? attempted politics seems to be wrong somehow. Anyway it is a great article and meets all the criteria as far as i can see. Good work SoLando. Woodym555 14:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- 1. What red link? (he asked innocently). 2. Changed to "tried politics" (which Google likes).--ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yep rewording looks good (and so does the stub by the way!!! ;) The wording was only the slightest of changes, but it just didn't look good to me. It is a great article. Well done. Woodym555 16:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose little--Miwanya 18:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Is this about size? It is comprehensive. it does not go into unneccessary detail and it is concise. What exactly is your objection please? We can't improve the article to meet your objections if we don't know what they are. Woodym555 18:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, Woodym555. Could you elaborate, Mlwanya? There is no established minimum size; if such a standard existed, it is certain that it wouldn't be strictly enforced if an FAC was demonstrably comprehensive and factually accurate (which this article is). Irrespective of size, the article does meet FA criterion, 1b and 2a being most pertinennt to your opposition. There have been numerous examples of relatively short articles attaining FA status, such as Hurricane Ismael and Hurricane Irene (2005). SoLando (Talk) 21:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- There is no mimimum size. As long as the article is demonstrably comprehensive, it meets the criteria. Checking through the sources available, it is clear that this is a comprehensive biography of the life of Issy Smith. Woodym555 22:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Given the paucity of original material, I suggest criterion 4 applies: "of an appropriate length ... without going into unnecessary detail". --ROGER DAVIES TALK 22:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)