Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Madgwick/archive1
- 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 not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Robert Madgwick edit
Robert Madgwick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. Cla68 (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK (PD-Australia, own work). Sources and authors provided (one unknown).
- File:Robert_Madgwick.jpg - caption could be trimmed, especially for an infobox image: "Colonel Robert Madgwick as Director of Army Education, Melbourne, 1944" contains all necessary information (Toorak is not mentioned in the article, the exact day of year makes no difference for the image, Australia is clear from the intro). GermanJoe (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at this later but can you separate notes from the citations like Nostradamus? I just think it looks clearer and tidier. Retrieved dates aren't needed for books. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have read the article twice, and support on prose. Suggestion: "Madgwick" appears more than 100 times in the article, at one place four times in three sentences. Can that be varied? I may have more suggestions but as a whole the article meets the standards for FA. In reply to the comments just above: the handling of explanatory notes and cites is a matter of personal preference, not FA criteria (and I don't read Dr. Blofeld to state otherwise), and I agree there is no need for accessdates on convenience weblinks to works in print. I would eliminate those links unless the website in use reproduces all relevant parts of the book, but that too is personal preference. Please review WP:HONORIFIC for use of "Sir"; it is not entirely clear to me, but "Sir" probably should not be in parens if used. Kablammo (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done.
- Combine identical cites like FNs 6 and 7
- Be consistent in how you punctuate single footnotes to multiple sources (compare for example FNs 12 and 13) and footnotes that include an explanation (4 vs 27)
- FN19, 38: page formatting
- FN82: which Spaull?
- 404 error
- Be consistent in how you deal with editions
- Be consistent in what is wikilinked or abbreviated in References - for example, compare the treatment of Armidale. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- I'm afraid that after remaining open six weeks this review has stalled, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.