Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parâkramabâhu I/archive1

Parâkramabâhu I edit

Hello everyone. I've nominated this article I've worked on for the past few months and I think it adheres to all of Wikipedia's Featured Article requirements. Thought I'd nominate it and see what happens. I look forward to everyone's input! DocSubster 22:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think this article is extremely well written, and very well researched and referenced. Docsubster has put an amazing amounty of work into it. Good work, Doc. Jeffpw 22:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, no progress at peer review, not nearly ready for FAC. Sandy (Talk) 23:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Refer to peer review. Sandy (Talk) 22:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have not read the article yet. Just one comment. Per WP:MOS inline citation superscripts should immediately follow punctuation marks, not before it. Please change all the citations accordingly. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment. See WP:MSH (about using &) and WP:LAYOUT. AZ _t 22:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object until peer review has run its course. Not quite WP:FA quality yet (mostly due to WP:WIAFA 1(a) and 2). Otherwise, good job! (see the peer review for my comments) AZ _t 23:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object full of peacock terms. FrummerThanThou 03:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yeah I agree with Jeffpw, This is one of the extremely well written article. ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 06:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an excellent piece of work.Not only this is well written,comprehensive and factually accurate its also neutral and gives an excellent image of, probably the best ever king My motherland ever had.I Don't see any reason not to have this as an FA .Having studied and gained a pretty good knowledge of Sri Lankan history, I would like to inform my fellow wikipedians,that so far I'm unable to see any reason to keep the peacock tag on it.I would appreciate, if anyone can point out the disputed sections or phrases here.Thanks -- Iwazaki 08:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree with the above post. It would be helpful, FrummerThanThou, if you could point to the "peacock terms" so action could be taken, or better still, be bold and make the changes yourself. After all, we are all supposed to be working towards the same goals here. Jeffpw 14:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although I've done a lot of the referencing cleanup work myself, I suggest it's premature to ask someone else to make prose changes: the copyedit needs in this article are quite extensive, and will require an extended effort, along with the list still at peer review. Sandy (Talk) 15:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]