Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Walpole/archive1

-- Emsworth 19:00, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

~~Object:~~ Atterbury's trial and exile had nothing to do with the South Sea Bubble. It was tied in with the Report of the White Staff that had indicted St. John and Harley. That has to be addressed as factually incorrect. I have other suggestions, but those are on the Talk page of the article. Since all the folks I study are enemies of Walpole, I cannot help but have absorbed their points of view. The matters on the talk page don't have to be addressed, but the Atterbury implication that the Bubble was going to be exploited by Jacobites does. The Jacobites were just as unprepared for the bubble as the dissenters. Geogre 01:50, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The Atterbury objection has been addressed, as have some of the others which I happen to agree with. -- Emsworth 02:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Objection withdrawn, though I still regard him as a dirty rat. Geogre 14:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - Of course, that does not disqualify his article... -- Emsworth 17:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Zerbey 23:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support -- there were some odd spellings, like "reëlection", and apparently one guy was a "statement" (not a "statesman")... but those can be forgiven -_-. ugen64 23:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 10:48, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Dirty rat? England has never had a Prime Minister who so closely resembled a big basket full of lovley kittens. Take THAT scum.--Crestville 20:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)