Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lad, A Dog/archive2

Lad, A Dog

Lad, A Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Lad, A Dog/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Lad, A Dog/archive2

Nominator(s): -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I am once again nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all of the featured article criteria. Currently a good article, it has undergone a peer review and been copy-edited by two editors who work in the CE areas[1][2]. It is neutral, stable, well-written, comprehensive, and well-researched, covering all major aspects of the work, which satisfies the first criteria. It follows WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines, and uses a consistent and valid citation style, satisfying criteria two. The previous FA primarily failed due to contentions over the images, which have since been corrected. The non-free cover has been replaced with the original 1919 cover (which is in the public domain), and a second image that could not be fully confirmed to be public domain was replaced with one that could. As noted in that FA, it is technically impossible for the article to be at its proper name, Lad: A Dog, due to that being an interwiki link - this has been addressed as best it can through the use of a hatnote and a soft redirect at the Lad wiki. Any other issues raised during that FA were addressed during the review period. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—(still) no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 19:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I thought this was close at its last FAC, and I think it's just about there now. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. What a thoroughly enjoyable read. This is my first review at FAC so I was really looking for things wrong with it, but couldn't find anything. Good job. One thing I didn't like was the way infobox jutted down a bit into the next section. I tried editing it but wasn't sure if it was any better. Tomlock01 (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support :) For the infobox, its fairly common with most articles, and the hatnotes should always go above the infobox (the edit you tried, right?) A break could be added, but it would then have too much white space. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I assumed that would be the case. Tomlock01 (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see the lead image; can an image person be consulted about adjusting the brightness? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it showing you the original or the second one I uploaded, which I brightened some? I didn't want to brighten it too much as I wanted to preserve as much of the original contrast (or lack thereof) as possible. I just uploaded another version that has been lightened more. Is that better? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Generally sources look OK subject to a few small fixes

• Publisher locations: consistency required in book sources; pub. locations missing from 3 (Morris), 32 (Dixon) and 36 (Penguin guide)
• Ref 4 lacks publisher and retrieval date
• Ref 8: "pp." should be used for page ranges, otherwise it's "p." See also 11
• Ref 30: This book appears to be the same as that in Ref 22 (same ISBN though formatted differently)

Brianboulton (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Woops...I must have gotten distracted while adding the SI source that I left out all that. Fixed along with the rest. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)