Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joseph Priestley House

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 00:09, 2 February 2008.

[edit] Joseph Priestley House

previous FAC withdrawn

Check external links

The Joseph Priestley House was the American home of Joseph Priestley and is a museum today. The article has had extensive helpful comments in both a peer review, and on its talk page. The talk archive chronicles the development of the article, which is jointly authored by Awadewit and Ruhrfisch, with useful comments and edits from several other editors. We have chosen not to have an infobox (one is not required) because it would force removal of at least one and possibly two of the images currently in the article. We believe the article meets all FAC criteria and the MOS guidelines (the previous nomination was by a user who had made no edits to the article, and was withdrawn quickly). Thanks in advance for any feedback, Awadewit | talk and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Support I have been waiting for "A" and "R" to finally nominate this. It is thoroughly researched and is well written. It is most certainly worthy of FA. Dincher (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Awesome work. From my perspective coming from WP:NRHP, I appreciate its early incorporation of official NHL and NRHP definitive references/sources, and its fully covering NHL and NRHP aspects of the site. doncram (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Wow. I couldn't find anything to change, and I looked hard! Karanacs (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Support yup, looks excellent. To say more would be knit picking.--Doc^g 12:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Thanks everyone for your kind words and support Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I gave a Peer Review for this article a couple weeks ago and my few comments and suggestions were handled with ease by Awadewit and Ruhrfisch. This is a (surprisingly) interesting article that is comprehensive and very well written. In my opinion it passes with flying colors! María (habla conmigo) 13:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment "an eighteenth-century woman" "15 US states" - numbers over ten should either all be spelled out or all be numerals. This includes ordinals. Epbr123 (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply Thanks for catching this. I just switched 10 different instances of numbers over ten to numerals, except for the number "seventy-seven" in a direct quote. (Awadewit, please revert and change to all spelled out if you prefer). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support: For the record I also offered some suggestions a couple weeks ago prior to the candidature. All dealt with. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 13:04, 1 February 2008 (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.