Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of non-ecclesiastical and non-residential works by John Douglas/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:19, 2 March 2010 [1].
- Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because...this is the fourth (and last) of a series of lists of works by John Douglas. The other three lists are all FLs and this list follows the same format. The lead is similar, apart from the last paragraph that is modified to apply to this list. The format of the list is precisely the same as that for List of houses and associated buildings by John Douglas. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support from Hassocks
Resolved comments from Hassocks5489
|
---|
Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies that I couldn't do this on Friday as expected. Here are my comments (mostly minor stuff) on the table itself: TABLE
Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
I'm pleased to be able to Support this nomination following today's changes. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support a very nice piece of work... well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Staxringoldtalkcontribs 18:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments I know some of these are styled from all these lists, but I think the points still apply, and perhaps should be applied to all of them.
|
Support (although there's one very minor issue below, that shouldn't hold up promotion). Mm40 (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
Sorry for being so picky, but I'll gladly support once these issues are resolved. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Some notes have full stops while others don't; be consistent
- Sorry couldn't find them. Please specify.
- None of the references formatted with {{Citation}} have full stops. Mm40 (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, my misunderstanding; I thought you meant the Notes column, which I scoured and found no absentees. Now I realise it was the Notes under References; the full stops have been added.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the last two reviewers and the trouble you've taken. I've just been away and have a few things to catch up with, but will try to answer the comments in the next few days. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I have addressed the points made above, although not necessarily solved all the problems. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a lot of my portion of the review is in what Mm40 wrote in his review, I'll be glad to re-review once their comments are resolved. So I will revisit then to avoid conflict and repetition.Truco 503 02:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.