Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yagan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Yagan

This is the most complete resource on Yagan in existence. It is thoroughly researched, well-written, neutral and stable. Self-nom. Drew (Snottygobble | Talk) 11:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Yes, it is a really great article about an Aboriginal folklore belief and is all the things the self-nom said. --EuropracBHIT 12:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC).
• Support. Excellent job by Snottygobble. I'm certain he's correct that this is the most comprehensive coverage of the subject compiled. It contains a great deal of information, is well-structured, well-written and well-referenced. And a fascinating topic. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• This looks great, but aren't there any good external links? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The only links that would in my opinion improve the article are already in the references section (as [15] and [19]). Drew (Snottygobble | Talk) 22:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Would it make sense to create an external links section and include those links in it, so that someone less interested in going through the references has a chance at seeing some other online information? Just wondering. Nice use of inline citations, though I'm not a fan of reference number 3 being used twice in three lines. But as I said before, great article; I support. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 05:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Personally, I think not, but we can do that if there is consensus to do so. Thanks for the duplicated reference point; that's fixed now. Drew (Snottygobble | Talk) 05:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support—This is good. Tony 23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. One of the most brilliant Wikipedia articles I've ever read on a subject that we wouldn't usually see covered well. Ambi 23:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support excellent article, and probably the definitive online source for the topic.--nixie 00:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support It has everything necessary for a feature article. Captain Jackson 04:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support A very good article that deserves to be a featured article. Bduke 05:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support an absolutely brilliant article. Great work Drew!--cj | talk 06:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent work. jengod 07:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Note: I replaced the blockquotes with wikicoded indents and italicized them to make them stand out as quotes. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  What's wrong with <blockquote>?--cj | talk 10:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  Reverted to <blockquote> per WP:MOS#Quotations -- Ian ≡ talk 11:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support, I can't vouch for the content, but it appears to be well-researched and well-referenced. Writing is fine and it certainly helps countering systematic bias. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. An excellent article on a fascinating part of West Australian history. Nachoman-au 11:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well done! Kaisershatner 18:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, an excellent article, well written, interesting scope, well-referenced--A Y Arktos 19:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Astrokey44|talk 23:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - well written and referenced, contains appropriate illustrations. very good job in every aspect and meets all criteria. Rossrs 13:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• support per Rossrs et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Durova 23:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, well done! - Mailer Diablo 02:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, Bravo! --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Further comment: this and several other recent nominations appear to be setting a new standard for FAs; it's great to see! Tony 11:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good stuff DaGizza^{Chat (c)} 03:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support: this is a very comprehensive article, with the best use of footnote references that I've seen on Wikipedia. Personally I'd like to see the "Relations with Settlers" section be split up into sub-sections, but still a great article none-the-less. -- Matthew kokai 09:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support in agreement with above suggestion that that section be subdivided. It's a long narrative that's tiring on the eyes otherwise. Daniel Case 04:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I have split up the section into sub-sections, though not quite in the manner suggested by Matthew at Talk:Yagan. Is this satisfactory? Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 03:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, a very good article which is neither too long or short. It deserves what it has. --Terence Ong 13:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, excellent work. gummAY 05:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)