Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Quatermass II
- 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 04:21, 5 May 2007.
Self-nomination. This is already a GA, and during the peer review it went through before GA nomination earlier this year (here) it was already being suggested by some users that I nominate it as an FA. Its immediate predecessor and successor are already FAs, so it might be quite nice to have the complete 1950s trilogy as an FA set. Angmering 18:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Meets the FA criteria. LuciferMorgan 19:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This should be the model fiction article. The plot summary is PERFECT: long enough to give the general idea, without rehashing every scene. I rarely review fiction articles myself, because it's like banging my head into a brick wall trying to get editors to reduce plot summaries to an encyclopedic length. I will now have this one to point to. Great job in all aspects, including the referencing and all. Congrats on a finely written article.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One further comment. When this one is elevated to Feature status, it might be nice to nominate the entire series as a "Featured Topic" at WP:FTC.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. One thing with regard to plot summaries: sometimes, in the case of RPGs like Final Fantasy VIII, a longer synopsis is fine, because RPG plots tend to exceed 40 hours in length and feature numerous subplots and perhaps alternative situations. — Deckiller 15:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One further comment. When this one is elevated to Feature status, it might be nice to nominate the entire series as a "Featured Topic" at WP:FTC.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, wow...I actually enjoyed reading that article. --Phoenix (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—THANK YOU. A FAC that needs little copy-editing! Please write more FACs.
- There are virtually no issues with the lead.
- Couple minor issues in the first section (i.e. we usually try to avoid saying "the fact that").
- I'll go through and look for anything else after I pick up lunch, but thank you! — Deckiller 15:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your kind words — although bear in mind that it has been through a peer review to weedle out my rubbish bits of writing. Anyhow, I've changed that "the fact that" you flagged up in the first section. I look forward to your further advice for improvements. Angmering 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I made a couple of minor MoS fixes, but this is a breath of fresh air, a virtually problem-free article. Quadzilla99 16:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.