Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/J. C. W. Beckham/archive2
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. 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.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:51, 31 October 2009 [1].
- Featured article candidates/J. C. W. Beckham/archive1
- Featured article candidates/J. C. W. Beckham/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
This is the article's second nomination. The first nomination closed with 2 supports (counting the nominator) and no explicit opposes, but one editor commented about the prose needing work. I listed the article for peer review, which garnered a few improvements. I am now re-listing in hopes of getting more feedback and seeing the article promoted to FA. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright review: No issues. NW (Talk) 23:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I thought this was good enough to be promoted last time (and I'm gratified to see that both peer reviewers agreed with me that the prose was good). Steve Smith (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
Duh, missed this last time. Need a retrieved on date for the Biographical Directory of the United States Congregss Ref. Really, this reference doesn't match the rest of your references, and I suggest dropping the COngressional Bio template and formatting it like any other website so that it is consistent with the other references.
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.
My only minor question is: do the reliable sources say anything about what happened to his wife and the other son? If so, that could be included for completeness.hamiltonstone (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the ones I've seen. If there is one or more that does, I haven't found it/them. Agree it would be inclusion-worthy if there were anything. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the ones I've seen. If there is one or more that does, I haven't found it/them. Agree it would be inclusion-worthy if there were anything. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with one minor comment... "He was the state's first popularly elected senator following passage of the Seventeenth Amendment." The sentence is a little unclear. A reader not familiar with the history might question whether you meant the first elected senator after passage of the 17th (not having clicked through to see what the 17th amendment did), or the first senator who was elected after such elections were required by the 17th. Not sure how best to reword it. Geraldk (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.