Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Woodruff: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:34, 16 May 2006

Michael Woodruff

While this article is rather new, I've put a lot of work into it, including a peer review. So far as I can tell, it meets all of the criteria. Unfortunately, I have not yet managed to find a picture of Sir Michael for it. I'm working on this and should have one in a few weeks. Please don't vote no just because of the lack of picture. After all, pictures aren't technically required by the criteria. Cool3 16:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - looks good on a first pass. I'd suggest following the guideline that footnote numbers should follow punctuation, and rather than having the Refs and Notes section separately, use the cite.php function to combine them. The Sheffield Uni coat of arms need a fair use rationale. —Whouk (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggested changes pertaining to citations have been enacted. Cool3 19:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Support. —Wh o uk (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak object.~~ The article looks good, but the prose in the "Importance" section is a bit awkward and could be reworded. Also, is there any way the list of books Woodruff wrote could be converted comfortably into prose? It's not a big deal if converting the list doesn't work out. Other than that, the article is very good. RyanGerbil10 19:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I reworded the Importance section. It seemed difficult to change the books into prose, so I split Woodruff's publications into a separate subsection, somewhat cutting down on the interruptive effect of listing them. Cool3 20:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most excellent. I now Support. RyanG e rbil10 20:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work! InvictaHOG 00:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has come on in leaps and bounds since the peer review. I'm impressed that an article of this quality has developed so quickly. Oldelpaso 13:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Tony 11:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the Sheffiled coat of arms really serves no purpose in the article. The captions on the other images could also use some work so that it is obvious how they relate to the articles text.--Peta 01:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree about the Sheffield coat of arms. It doesn't really illustrate anything. —Wh o uk (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No pic??? --UVnet 11:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 *'''Comment''', the Sheffiled coat of arms really serves no purpose in the article. The captions on the other images could also use some work so that it is obvious how they relate to the articles text.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 01:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 **I agree about the Sheffield coat of arms. It doesn't really illustrate anything. &mdash;[[User:Whouk|Wh]][[User:Whouk/Esperanza|<font color="green">o</font>]][[User:Whouk|uk]] <small>([[User talk:Whouk|talk]])</small> 07:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Oppose''' - No pic??? --[[User:UVnet|UVnet]] 11:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)