Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. S. Gilbert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] W. S. Gilbert

Probably one of the best short biolgraphies of W.S. Gilbert out there. Detailed, covers all aspects of his life and work (which few short biographies about him do), and uses a format developed for the article after that of Demosthenes that I think works really well. Has had two peer-reviews, of which I think everything was dealt with. Of course, this is a self-nomination. Vanished user talk 07:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I urge to remove the list of Gilbert's works into a separate page. You may check Nikolai Gogol (which I just completed) to see how this may be implemented. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Query: We have removed most of the works to another page, what remains is a list of those with articles (or those so important that they couldn't be left off): should this simplified section still be removed? It certainly can be, but... Vanished user talk 09:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Ah, well. Fixed. Vanished user talk 09:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks much nicer this way. Support. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Can we just hang on for another 3 days, just to tighten up the references and prose? Once that's done, the article will look truly magnificent. Moreschi 08:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The FA status is supposed to take a week or so anyway, I think, so it'll be fixed up by then. Vanished user talk 12:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
(For those confused, I invited Moreschi into the project to point out everything he thought needed citing that wasn't - it's hard, when you're too close to the subject, to know what might jump out to other readers. Then I went through reference works and cited everything. The footnotes grew from 15 three days ago to 41 now, many of those footnotes containing multiple cites - an effective citing up, I think. Vanished user talk 15:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Here is the BIO peer review, which is only a week old. It is helpful to reviewers to link to old reviews, so we don't have to do the same work twice. Sandy 01:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I apologise for not linking. I think, however, that everything that came up was dealt with? Vanished user talk 11:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. All the concerns of the two Biography reviews have been addressed.--Yannismarou 18:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • SupportOppose. Not enough refs: there are still entire unreferenced paragraphs. Please add more inline references, I'd be happy to support than.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Added a few more refs. If there's anyhing else, tell me - should cite the Who's who bit, but I'll get that Wednesday or so. Almost sure it's in Stedman, but better to check first. Vanished user talk 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Did the pragmatic thing and temporarily removed the Who's Who bit: It can easily be added back in later, when referenced, and since I think it's the only non-cited, non-trivial fact, I didn't want it holding up FA. Vanished user talk 00:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm a contributor, but I can confirm that these references have been checked, and that the authorities in the field agree with the bibliography. -- Ssilvers 02:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well worthy of featured article status. A thorough treatment of the whole of Gilbert's life and literary career (not just the G&S years). Heavily referenced too. Obviously a lot of hard work and research has gone into it. My congratulations to the authors.--Folantin 17:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Reads well and easily. Informative and seemingly well referenced. Good job.--Monocrat 18:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - as involved party. All my requests for cites were met and I've tightened up the prose. It looks good. Moreschi 08:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well written and very informative, covering his life and the full range of works and not just those for which he his best known. PaulJones 08:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It is the very model of a modern Wiki article. Guy 14:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-written, follows MOS, easily understandable, well-organized and well-referenced article. --Drenched 10:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)