Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Washington Dixon

George Washington Dixon

Self-nomination. An interesting figure from 19th century America who is today mostly forgotten. His story touches on American popular culture, blackface minstrelsy, yellow journalism, spectator sports, and many other areas. The article draws from all major contemporary works that discuss the man (primarily Cockrell and Browder). There are a lot of footnotes. I know that some people don't like footnotes, but I feel that all of the ones I've included are necessary. The article is 32 kb long. Without the references and categories (this guy did so much in his lifetime that he belongs to a ton of categories), it drops to well under the limit. Peer review netted exactly one comment. Thanks for any comments! — BrianSmithson 15:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditional~~ Support: I know you're going to get some complaints about the references, but I don't think ref formatting is all that important. The information is there, and I'm fine with it, so I'll leave that to someone else. I do think it's important to not link to random dates and years in articles, though. 90% of the dates in this article could be unlinked. Clicking on "September 12", for example, doesn't add anything to one's understanding of the article, and makes for needless clutter. Otherwise, A very interesting and well-written article. Seems comprehensive and stable, with relevant pictures and (in my opinion) good references. Kafziel 19:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree about linking dates. The problem is that users who have set preferences for date formatting will not see the effects of such unless dates are linked. The article follows the policy set forth under Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting. I'm not sure if there's an easy compromise between allowing users' preferences to work and not overlinking. — BrianSmithson 20:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough explanation for me. Changing to full support. Kafziel 20:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting slice of Americana. Well written, too. --Jayzel 17:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well written and nicely done. PDXblazers 06:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support A very nice article, interesting subject. Reboot 08:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]