Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edwin Taylor Pollock

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

[edit] Edwin Taylor Pollock

This is a self-nom, I've been massaging this article for some time. It has been peer-reviewed and has passed GA. (It has also been assessed as 'A' by the Military History project.) I hope that it is good enough for FA now, but I am happy to make any changes that it needs to get there. I am very proud of this work. JRP 05:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This sentence needs reworded: "Like many naval officers, his name was often abbreviated as E. T. Pollock." As written, it means that many naval officers were known as E. T. Pollock, which would be quite surprising. —Kevin 15:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Better? I agree it would be surprising, though I expected the meaning of the sentence to be clear given the context. Let me know if this is better for you. JRP 17:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support; all the issues raised during the peer and A-Class reviews have been resolved. Kirill Lokshin 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Well-cited, informative, comprehensive, stable, well-written and neutral. JonCatalan 18:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support; very good work, meets all the criteria, all previous issues resolved. Carom 19:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Support; great article. Three quick concerns:

• Under U.S. Virgin Islands, shouldn't, "...the US signed a treaty to purchase the territory off of Denmark for 25 million dollars..." say, "...from Denmark..."?
• The last 'paragraphs' of the U.S. Virgin Islands and World War I sections might be more appropriately appended to their previous paragraphs, so there aren't stubby paragraphs in the article.
• Is there more useful information about his retirement? Three lines is a little short for a section, though it's a separate enough topic that if there isn't more information it does warrant its own section.

Good work. - Mocko13 22:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I've corrected the sentence from your first and second points. For the third, I wasn't able to find any more post-retirement information without doing original research. I admit that what I have is imperfect, but as far as I can tell he didn't do much. (I found that he may have taught at a school in Michigan for a while, but I couldn't find a reliable source for that so it was omitted rather than risk it being outright wrong.) And his post-career didn't figure into the American Samoa, USVI, or USNO history books I've been using, nor are there any prominent newspaper articles about his activities, sadly. Is this acceptable? I just don't know where else to look. JRP 05:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • If there's nothing there, there's not much you can do. Changed to support. - Mocko13 20:10, 1 March 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.