Following a successful good article nomination, a fruitful peer review, and encouragement from experienced featured article commentators, I am nominating this article for featured article status. I feel it is thoroughly referenced, strikingly illustrated and exhaustive of its subject, thereby representing the encyclopedia's finest work. Skomorokhincite 14:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Support - Congratulations to the editors for patiently assembling a very fine biography that incorporates contributions from far and wide. In my opinion as someone who added a few minor edits, the article traverses the minefield of what some call cyberspace—with both respect for the subject and his fans, and with the criticism (an understatement from some points of view) that their work attracts. Well done. -Susanlesch (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Support - Well done overall, well-written, comprehensive, well-sourced, good use of free-use images. The only thing I'd say is that for a newcomer to the article, the Lead/Intro is a bit long, no need to go into that much detail. The lede could do without the two quotes in the fourth paragraph, and without the amount of detail in the second paragraph. But these are not sticking points, overall very well done. Cirt (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
Thank you for your kind comments; I'm going to leave the lede for now as it has been historically troublesome to get right and it isn't a sticking point for you, but if another reviewer objects I'll try and reform it somewhat. Regards, Skomorokhincite 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Support per the fixing of small stuff All my issues with this article are MOS stuff (and pointing this out is the subject of a current FAC controversy) but otherwise it is an extremely well-written, well-organized, biography of Gibson.
I think according to MOS your opening sentence William Ford Gibson, born March 17, 1948 (1948-03-17) (age 59), in Conway, South Carolina is an American-Canadian writer should actually be:William Ford Gibson (born March 17, 1948) is an American-Canadian writer... Let the Infobox take care of the rest, current age/ place of birth.
In terms of recognition, The Literary Encyclopedia identifies Gibson as "one of North America's most highly acclaimed science fiction writers." for incomplete sentences punctuation should be outside the quotes, See WP:PUNC.
Feted by The Guardian in 1999 as "probably the most important novelist of the past two decades," his thought has been cited as an influence on science fiction authors, in academia, cyberculture, and technology. same here with the punctuation.
He appeared, during the Summer of Love of 1967, in a CBC newsreel item about hippie subculture in Yorkville, Toronto, for which he was paid $500 - the equivalent of 20 weeks rent—which financed his later travels. i believe an em-dash or an en-dash is needed here.. see WP:DASH.
Tom Maddox has commented that Gibson "grew up in an America as disturbing and surreal as anything J. G. Ballard ever dreamed." same here with the punctuation.
Gibson met Sterling at a science fiction convention in Denver, Colorado in the Autumn of 1981, where he read "Burning Chrome"—the first cyberspace short story—to an audience of four people, and later stated that Sterling "completely got it." same here with the punctuation
In October 1982 Gibson traveled to Austin, Texas for ArmadilloCon, at which he appeared with Shirley, Sterling and Shiner on a panel called "Behind the Mirrorshades: A Look at Punk SF", where Shiner noted "the sense of a movement solidified." same here with the punctuation.
Lawrence Person, writing in his "Notes Toward a Postcyberpunk Manifesto" (1998) identified the novel as "the archetypal cyberpunk work," and in 2005, Time magazine included... same here where the comma should be outside of the quotes.
by The Literary Encyclopedia You should use the author's name, so John Doe in The Literary Encyclopedia, because I believe those encyclopedic entries are authored. MOS also states that this should be done, specifying the author of the quotation for a publication. But with the Literary Encyclopedia it would actually be nice to know.
I have left the author's name out of the lede out of a desire to keep that short; he was already explicitly mentioned in the text twice and now twice further. Is attribution in the references sufficient for the quote in the lede or does that definitely need attributing in the body? I feel it's almost undue weight to mention the author so much. Skomorokhincite 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You mention Rapatzikou three times now in the text and that's fine. So it's now obvious that Rapatzikou is a scholar of Gibson as well as the author of the Literary Encyclopedia article.
So thanks for writing this. I've already put Neuromancer on my to read list.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your diligent response, and for editing the article yourself. I haven't touched the WP:DASH business as it seems other editors have strong feelings on the matters, but I've tried to address most of your other concerns. Skomorokhincite 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Support I went through the article and fact-checked most of it. I have only read one of his books (guess which one) but I found that a lot has been written about him. Although long, this article is easy to read and does a good job profiling his professional life. Reference 69's ("Speeches by WG and BS at the National Academy of Sciences") link is dead. maclean 04:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Done Ref fixed, thanks for your effort. Skomorokhincite 15:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
So...excuse my ignorance, but what exactly happens now that the concerns have been addressed? Does the article pass immediately by default, only after a certain period of time, only if no-one else opposes within a certain length of time, or when the director says so? If there's anything else I can do to improve the article, please let me know. Skomorokhincite 23:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The FA director periodically goes through everything on FAC and promotes some, archives others, and leaves the rest for more comments. Articles may be left for more comments if the director feels consensus has not been reached, or because not enough people have commented, or the article has only been on FAC a short time, or because there are unaddressed significant objections and the nominator is in the process of fixing them. I believe Raul is planning a round of promotions and archiving tomorrow evening (he often does them on Sunday evenings). Mike Christie(talk) 23:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Support. Meant to lend my support earlier. I peer-reviewed awhile ago and I was impressed with how well done the article was then. It's only improved since. Great work, Skomorokh! --JayHenry (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.