The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:58, 7 January 2012 [1].
Mathew Charles Lamb ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
This is a newly-promoted GA which I wrote aiming for the FA criteria, which I believe it now meets. Prose, I think, is of a high standard, and I find the article to be comprehensive. I made a big effort to find contemporary newspaper sources, which I think bore considerable fruit and improved the article immensely. Judging from feedback I have received it is also well-presented and neutral, which I thought would make it a good candidate for an FA even while I was nominating it for GA. In her favourable review for GA, Dana boomer said she thought it "ha[d] a good chance at FAC", which encouraged me to nominate it. — Cliftonian the orangey bit 02:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk; please read the instructions at WP:FAC and avoid using templates here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Support' most issues resolved. Comments
Comments Support:
Spotcheck for accurate representation of sources and paraphrasing is pending. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Support - pending outcome of the spotchecks. I made a few minor edits to a well written, engaging contribution. No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm ( talk) 07:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Spotchecks - I completed spotchecks during my GA review of this article and found no problems at that time. I just checked a few more sources, and again found no problems. (Also, nice work to Cliftonian!) Dana boomer ( talk) 16:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply