Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Confederate government of Kentucky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 15:06, 14 August 2007.

[edit] Confederate government of Kentucky

Nomination restarted (Old nom) Raul654 13:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Support (original nominator) Still hoping to pass this article and include it as the main article for a featured topic that would also include good articles George W. Johnson (Civil War) and Richard Hawes. Acdixon 13:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm not sure that I needed to post my support as I assisted with the article in question, but I might add that most of the work was actually done by Acdixon, and I believe it to be a well thought article with outstanding prose. I further believe it fulfills the requisite FA criteria. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 14:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixes needed. Pls see WP:LEAD: "The article's subject should be mentioned at the earliest natural point in the prose in the first sentence, and should appear in bold face. Avoid links in the bold title words." Please adjust the lead to avoid links in the bold title words. There's a missing footnote. Please make sure that page numbers are given for all direct quotes from books. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I have fixed the lead and the broken footnote. I will try to provide page numbers for the direct quotes, but unfortunately, most of the references have already been returned to the library, and some of them were on interlibrary loan from across the state. I'll give it my best effort, but I hope you will be able to support the nomination even if I can't find all of them. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I won't stand in the way of promotion over page numbers, but please try to get the books back and add them before main page appearance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support on condition that all of SandyGeorgia's fixes are implemented. Otherwise, it still looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Article has been much improved with the recent changes. Nice job! 8th Ohio Volunteers 20:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. My requests for changes were dealt with quickly last time and I supported last time. The flimsy and irrelecant nature of the government in question isn't reflected by the quality of the article. Vote for the article, not ths subject. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Support Overall, this is very well-written, and a very interesting article. I am a bit hesitant to support it at this time because, while reading it, I found one blatant spelling error and and a duplicate word (which I fixed). I am also uncertain as to why the editors are spelling the name of the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania without the 'h'? I think a good, final copyedit by a more experienced copyeditor, and this article will be easily pass the FA criteria. Cheers! Dr. Cash 06:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The spelling of Pittsburg(h) was changed by User:Orlady with the edit summary "changed link to point to preferred spelling of Pittsburgh." I figured this user knows more about it than I do. I have solicited the help of three WikiProjects (Kentucky, Louisville, and Military History) in trying to improve the article in all ways, including copyediting, but so far haven't gotten much response. If you could provide more specific examples of the types of errors you found in need of attention, I will do my best to correct them. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 11:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I also wondered about the spelling of Pittsburgh, but I did not change it in the article due to the possibility that there was a historical reason for the variant spelling "Pittsburg". All that I changed was the spelling of the internal link (so it would not redirect). --orlady 13:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Oops. Sorry to have improperly attributed the spelling to you then, Orlady. Looking back, it seems that the spelling was introduced by User:North Shoreman in one of his suggested edits, and I just copied and pasted it without looking. I have taken your words for it and added the "h". Thanks for the catch. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Changing vote to support. Looks good now. Dr. Cash 17:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well-structured article about a very interesting historical subject. I just reviewed it, and I'm unsure how it could get much cleaner or better footnoted. Of course, there's nothing stopping continual improvement after it makes FA. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support/promote This article is of higher quality then several other FAs I've seen recently. It is comprehensive, well sourced, and informative. MrPrada 01:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, I really enjoyed the article and it has all of the makings of an FA. Tony the Marine 04:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.