Alarum. Enter Jappalang, head bowed, heart heavy with apologies to ole Willie Shakespeare for the following...
Where is the bronze star that marks a Featured Article?
How far hence is the mark, mine honest fellows?
Ah, who is nigh? come to me, friend or foe,
And tell me is this article, featured or not?
Why ask I that? my cramping fingers show,
My edits, my want of prose, my tired mind shows.
That I must yield my pen to this page
And, humbly, request the star from ye all.
The text has been given the red pen's edge,
Whose strokes marked out many redundant words.
Many eyes, that came in the peer reviews,
Have purviewed the content, giving deep insight,
To ensure the article yields all secrets.
The images brought forth, mixed amongst the text,
Are verifiably free to use for all in any means
Sweet call to pens! Voice, editors, your concerns and thoughts;
For Jappalang offers this article to FAC. Jappalang (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Support: Dude. I, like, did an aforementioned copyedit and stuff. I think this article is, like, totally awesome, what with all its research and comprehensive sourcing and thorough explanations and what have you. Jappalang is totally sick widdit for doin' all that work. Scartol • Tok 12:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Then I realized that I should have done it in verse. So here's what I should have posted initially:
I must admit I did a peer review
and yet I say about the piece to you:
it's great, it's fine, it's excellent and more
relating thence the Roses gone to War.
The images are fine; we are no fools
you followed all the righteous Commons rules
the research carried out so thoroughly
has made this piece an article to see.
For all the noble work performed thus far,
I say, "Attach forthwith the FA star!"
Iambic pentameter, baby. What. Scartol • Tok 15:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Support, I say, from me to you, dear sir;
it is a fine example you offer.
There is but one complaint I have to bear,
a thing that lacks consistency (a hair):
When thou dost state "In <year>" to start a verse,
Prithee that soothes any choler. Jappalang (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
to not use a comma is quite perverse.
So is splitting an infinitive. =) Scartol • Tok 04:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - I refuse to write in iambic pentameter. How much time did you guys taken writing those? :) As to the article: I felt that it was close to FA when I reviewed it for MILHIST's A-class, and it looks even better now. Great work! Regarding poor Duke Exeter: is it believed by secondary sources that he was murdered in 1475? "[...] the duke was reported to have fallen overboard and drowned without any witnesses" seems to imply that to me... If sources do say that, it might be an interesting tidbit to include. —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 05:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry... we got carried away there (heh). Thank you for the support. For Exeter, he was deduced to have fallen overboard and drowned; his body was found washed ashore at Dorset (hence, no eyewitness account). A Milanese envoy, Giovanni Pannicharola, claimed that Charles, while drunk, told him Edward had planned it; this information, however, is brought up by a "popular" historian. Respected historians and publications fail to give due to this claim—perhaps they consider it as plain gossip and hearsay—so it was advised to leave such unreliable information out. Jappalang (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, no other sources exist (as far as I know) for this information, except Seward's The Wars of the Roses, which is the source I mentioned above. Jappalang (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This page is getting hard to read. Look at what you started. ;) @ above, no problem then. Good luck with everything else! —Ed(Talk • Contribs) 06:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment sorry to interrupt all the merriment, but the first reference needs an additional "p" as there are multiple pages. Fix this. And you think this can be an FA... Mm40 (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
...which was easily fixed. Jappalang (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
At the peer review a number of small
Concerns were raised by me. Use of obscure
Terminology, when simple modern
Equivalents exist. Image placement.
Confusion about the current and the
Historic status of Barnet village.
(Is it Hertfordshire? Middlesex? London?
Even the residents can be confused.)
And inconsistency in the use of
Metric and Imperial measurements.
It is all minor nitpicking, and yet
Minor nitpicking, it is the stuff that
All Featured Article candidacies
Do stand and fail on. Thus I'm pleased to see
That all the issues raised have been addressed.
It would be hypocritical of me
To raise fresh concerns, having been given
The chance to raise issues previously.
And so, while issues may be unresolved
(I do not pretend to have a knowledge
Of fifteenth century military
History, or of the policies that MilHist enforce, but are ignored elsewhere)
To this article I give a support. Exit stage left, pursued by Sandy – iridescent 00:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Image review - All images are impeccably described and licensed. :) Awadewit (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment (all in good fun) by the noted literary critic Awadewit. Jappalang, whose user page reveals his interest in games, has treated the FAC world to a linguistic game in his nomination statement. In a series of postmodern allusions, he references not only the "red pen" and its "strokes" but also the "cramping fingers" associated with the computer keyboard. The imagery tying both together is clearly phallic, as he reveals the homoerotic orgy behind the creation of this article. As readers, we are left to conclude that "The Internet is for Porn". Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Ye forgot "Willie" if ye be tryin to delve along this path. Words cannot express my reaction, yet take a look at this. Jappalang (talk) 08:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Support (Full disclosure: I peer reviewed this article.) This is clearly-written, comprehensive, well-illustrated article. Thank you for working on it so diligently, Jappalang! Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)