Talk:Fabyan Windmill

comment
Uprated article to Start, as it is at least that, with extensive development supported by multiple references. Nice work with the article!

One thing i don't get: What is "ironic" about German code being broken near a windmill? If merely that German code was addressed on property of someone of German descent, that is not so spectacular. If Fabyan was a Nazi proponent, then it would qualify as ironic. Anyhow, on this point the article is kind of mysterious. A link to an article about the code-breaking facility would be appropriate, if there is one. doncram (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, thanks for the compliment. Secondly, the information about the German code being broken there really doesn't belong in the article at all.  It was mentioned in one of my sources, I found it interesting, and wanted a way to mention it.  Somehow, "In a twist of irony..." was the way I put it in there.  I'll delete it, because I really don't see how it can fit in as is.  As of now, there is no article about the facility where it took place.  Maybe I'll tackle that one in the future. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice little article, I cleaned it up a bit, added the correct terminology. I've deleted the bit about the fantail as this mill doesn't have one - see Windmill fantail. Mjroots (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article review

 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

To tell you the truth, I wish more information existed on this article, but I feel the amount in there is sufficient for Good Article status. I'd say, expand a little more, then send off for FAC. Anyway, good luck with future articles. I'll be happy to review any.Mitch32contribs 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Stamp image removal
I have removed the stamp image File:Fabyan Windmill Stamp - 1980.jpg because it a non-free image of a stamp that fails WP:NFC which clearly states: Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject, which was the use here, so it may not be used in this article. This use is improper and must be removed. If you disagree you may want to familiarise yourself with the following: WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC, WP:NFC, and this FAQ to better understand the issues. Sorry. ww2censor (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)