Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sir Gawain and the Green Knight
- 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 00:37, 4 March 2008.
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight edit
This article, currently a GA, has been copy-edited and peer reviewed multiple times by myself, Awadewit, Scartol, Finetooth, Casliber, Galena11, Cuchulainn, and so on and so on. The consensus is that it is more than ready. I think it meets the criteria and will let it speak for itself.
Nominator Wrad (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support fantastic work. I gave this a text massage a while ago and thought it was comprehensive and had good prose then but has become even more thorough now. Well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have been following this page for a few months now. It is a well-researched and well-written article on a major work of literature. In my opinion, it meets and exceeds the FA criteria. Excellent work by the editors! Awadewit | talk 01:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well done. Made only a small change to the article to what I think reads better. Samuel Sol (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: fantastic article about one of my favorite works. Well written, exhaustively worked upon, wonderfully referenced, etc, etc. I see no issues and I had a long read through during lunch. Great job. :) María (habla conmigo) 00:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: A good read, despite still being scarred from the un-translated version – the horror. Well done, indeed. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Read this over, FA is beyond question the status it merits. A bit more literary criticism than history for my liking, but that's not relevant to the article's quality. Very well done! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite yet.
- The explanation of the Cottonian Library is sketchy; if we're going to mention Cotton's shelf numbers, we should explain them: tenth manuscript of the highest shelf under the bust of Nero, IIRC.) A little sorting would produce a paragraph, in chronological order, about the history of the MS, including the date of writing.
- The poem quite specifically describes the pentacle as a Christian symbol, not just a Solomonic one; since this is counterintuitive, it ought to be mentioned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying, but I'll try to respond. I haven't read any scholarly article making the point that the two are counterintuitive. Jewish and Christian symbols are intermixed pretty frequently, especially in Arthurian legends such as the Holy Grail. I just hesitate to add a statement saying it is counterintuitive without a source. The reference to it as a Christian symbol lies in the poet's description of the five fives of Gawain, which are discussed in the "Numbers" section already, so both interpretations are mentioned in the article. Scholars seem to connect the five fives more with number symbolism than with the Pentangle itself, and we had to make a choice where to put that information, so we sided with the scholarship. I hope this helps. Wrad (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes: pls doublecheck WP:PUNC (logical punctuation), WP:MOS#Ellipses, and WP:DASH (endashes on page ranges). I caught a few, so doublecheck my work in case my logical quotes are wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]