Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Koli Point action
- 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 18:31, 7 February 2008.
Respectfully nominate this article about a World War II Pacific Campaign battle for FA consideration. The article passed an A-class review at WP:MILHIST [1]. Self-nomination. Cla68 (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A very nice article and an interesting read, as expected. A couple of questions and comments, but nothing that I feel should hold up this FA candidacy.
- Is there any reason Edmund Sebree and Millard F. Harmon don't have their own articles?
- I noticed one or two errant commas, particularly in the second paragraph of "Guadalcanal campaign", keep an eye out for them.
Other than that, its all good. Nice work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your comments on the article. I removed the commas in question and started articles on Millard Harmon and Edmund Sebree. Cla68 (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Another good article. Kyriakos (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Jimfbleak (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Page ranges need en dashes. Epbr123 (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find any page ranges in the article that aren't using en dashes. Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I found some here, and more ... easiest thing to do is to ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to correct them.
- Hough, Pearl Harbor to Guadalcanal, p. 350, Shaw, First Offensive, p. 42-43, Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 423-424, Griffith, Battle for Guadalcanal, p. 246, Miller, Guadalcanal, p. 200, Zimmerman, Guadalcanal Campaign, p. 141-145. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I'm confused here. I thought those were en dashes that are currently separating those page numbers. En dashes are the regular keyboard hyphens and the Em dashes are the long (–) hyphens? Cla68 (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope: hyphen (-), ndash (–), mdash (—). Hyphen and ndash look the same in the default edit-mode font though, unless you use the explicit html coding. Carre (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I think they're all correct now. Thank you Epbr123 for helping out. Cla68 (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I found some here, and more ... easiest thing to do is to ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to correct them.
- Support Another great article on the Guadalcanal campaign which meets all the FA criteria. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.