Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The General in His Labyrinth

The General in His Labyrinth

Featured article candidates/The General in His Labyrinth

I'm nominating this article for featured article because our group has put a huge amount of work into this project. We have already received good article status and have gone through a critical review process since then. We are also still all actively involved and will respond to any comments or suggestions. Co-nom: User:Carlaty, User:Eshiu, User:Jbmurray. Paulleblanc

Minor Oppose A good third of the citations are primary source and they are not in the plot summary area where they would be expected. These primary source citations are, however, in the character sections, which makes me weary. I also don't know if various language publication are really needed - such a trend would be awful when documenting works like Harry Potter. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "makes me weary"? Is it the citations that make you weary, or the character sections? Sorry, I'm confused a little. Wrad (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number four primarily, and maybe a little of two. Its not a book report, so some criticism and third party view is rather important. We aren't Cliffnotes, after all. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as co-nominator, and as a significant contributor to the article. But I'd like to point out that the credit goes to my fellow co-nominators: Carlaty, Eshiu, and Paulleblanc. This is a fine piece of work. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you really "support" it if you are claiming yourself as co-nom? I think you would already be included at the top. Otherwise, it would be silly. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the explanation for nomination is what I wrote. Why can't he add an independent reason for nomination? Paulleblanc (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also I don't believe supporting nomination is the same thing as supporting an article for FA status. I supported nomination, but I don't necessarily support FA status yet because imagine some valid suggestions will be made during this process. So it's not trivial that Jmurray points out that he supports this page recieving FA status.

Support Was at first a bit worried by the character sections, but they seem appropriate to me after looking closer. Primary sources seem only to be used when directly quoting the text, which seems to be done enough, but not too much. Character sections seem an appropriate place for primary sources in my mind. International listings can stay or go. I'm really indifferent either way and also think that, either way, the article is an FA. Wrad (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The publication history would probably benefit by having all the various translations inscribed into a table. Further more, why does the Italian translation have two dates, while none of the others do? Kaiser matias (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]