Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bath, Somerset
- 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 promoted 00:08, 6 February 2008.
Bath, Somerset edit
- previous FAC
- FAR; has been on main page.
- Check external links
This article, about a city and World Heritage Site in South West England, became a FA in early 2005 appearing on the main page in Sept of that year. In Dec 2006 it had a featured article review and was demoted for the lack of inline citations, poor prose etc. It was in a sorry state, including loads of red links, typographic errors etc and underwent a name change from "Bath" to "Bath, Somerset". A team of editors, including those from WikiProject Somerset, have now done a great deal of work to correct the errors, expanding the article, providing citations & extensive copyediting. I now feel it meets the FA criteria but if others can suggest further areas for improvement we will do our best to respond to them.— Rod talk 12:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Doesn't neglect major facts and is well sourced, great use of images too.--The Dominator (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
..where the Romans built Baths and a temple - erm, that 'Baths' doesn't need the capital, does it?
I'd mention it was called Aquae Sulis in the lead as it is a notable name.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, my internet connection died and I went to bed. I'll continue now:
::when the city revived as a spa. - 'revived' here to me sounds slightly odd (Bath sin't alive), though 'experienced a revival' is wordier but to me sounds better.
Last para of Physical geography needs an inline citation. Could probably throw in another fact or two as it is a bit stubby and the springs are a pretty central part of Bath's raison d'etre.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good to me. I've used this article in the past. It's come along way since its last FAC. Llamabr (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please doublecheck the dead links returned by Check external links.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - although the link check software identifies 2x 404 errors & 2x 400 errors they all work when you click on them & the URL you arrive at is the same as the link in the ref. The last one is to a journal article & the link takes you to the front page & a subscription is needed to access more text. I don't know what I can do about them? I've left a message on the talk page of User talk:Dispenser to see how these can be overcome. — Rod talk 18:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow what an extra line of code can do. It was making requests like
GET /…/Bath%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93RoyalCrescent.aspx HTTP/1.1when it should've been doingGET /…/Bath%E2%80%93RoyalCrescent.aspx HTTP/1.1basically decoding the special characters an then re-encoding them in UTF-8. This eliminate all those "400 Bad Request" FIXME links in the todo list. The soft 404 are due to cookies not being implemented. And Sandy there's a Summary view, which only show dead or suspicious links and I've also created a monobook.js file that put the link into the toolbox on the side. If you want me to run the jobs at a different time let me know as right now they start at 5:00 UTC (Midnight EST) as this is when general server usage is low. — Dispenser 00:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow what an extra line of code can do. It was making requests like
- Thanks, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.