Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brooks-Baxter War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Brooks-Baxter War
I've been working on this article for a week or two. A lot of the research came from a research paper I wrote on the subject. The only problems I can see with the article would be citations, which are kind of odd because they are from 100+ year old newspaper articles, and verifying the images copyright status which are all 100+ years old. I know I shouldn't nominate this with these problems but, I think they are minor and can be fixed. Then the article should be good enough to be featured. --The_stuart 20:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It looks like you've put a lot of work into it,
but the peer review you already requested would be a better place to get feedback to help you prepare it for FAC - there is still a lot of work to be done to satisfy WP:WIAFA.Sandy (Talk) 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)- Thanks, I thought I had taken into account all of the suggestion given by the automated peer review, which is the only feedback I got for the article. I was hoping to get more real specific feedback here. --The_stuart 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's unfortunate when there isn't enough feedback on PR: it's too bad we can't get some of the GA resources to work on PR. I just left comments on the peer review . The article isn't as far away as I initially thought (because you do have inline cites). More work is needed, but I'm striking my comment that it's not ready for FAC. Sandy (Talk) 22:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I thought I had taken into account all of the suggestion given by the automated peer review, which is the only feedback I got for the article. I was hoping to get more real specific feedback here. --The_stuart 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Can't possibly pass with a copy-edit notice at the top. Tony 05:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Object. Apparently The stuart is not working on this article, and the issues raised on peer review have not been addressed. Sandy (Talk) 20:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Object—This can't possibly be a serious nomination. Tony 14:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
