Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Schabir Shaik Trial: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
→[[Schabir Shaik Trial]]: support |
m fix minor formatting mistake |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
::I've gone ahead and fixed them [[User:The Catfish|The Catfish]] 18:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC) |
::I've gone ahead and fixed them [[User:The Catfish|The Catfish]] 18:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support''' - More pictures would be nice, though. - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' - More pictures would be nice, though. - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support. But an external links section would be good, and there are few references in the 'References' section - More pictures would also be a nice addition to the article. — [[User:Wackymacs|Wackymacs]] 20:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC) |
*'''Support'''. But an external links section would be good, and there are few references in the 'References' section - More pictures would also be a nice addition to the article. — [[User:Wackymacs|Wackymacs]] 20:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:25, 22 December 2005
Self-nom. I am relising this as I truly believe it deserves to be a featured article. Its first listing received little attention, despite this being one of the most important court trials in South African history. Previous lising is here. User:PZFUN/signature 07:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Everyking 08:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Well written, but I'm a little surprised at the coverage of in-line citations in the article - All
3130 of them are between the first four (excluding the lead-in) sections, and nothing else thereafter. I presume they all covered by the later two references? - Mailer Diablo 12:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Um wait, there are 31 citations but only 30 at the footnotes...did I see something wrong here? - Mailer Diablo 12:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- One citation points to the same footnote, and I found it silly to continuously repeat the same footnote when from reading the articles its fairly obvious. User:PZFUN/signature 20:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- The numbers in the citations and footnotes should line up. See Saffron for a nice little method of citing one footnote multiple times and keeping the numbers lined up. The Catfish 23:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and fixed them The Catfish 18:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support - More pictures would be nice, though. - Cuivienen 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. But an external links section would be good, and there are few references in the 'References' section - More pictures would also be a nice addition to the article. — Wackymacs 20:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)