Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/1st Airborne Division (United Kingdom)/archive1

1st Airborne Division (United Kingdom)

 * Contributor(s): Jim Sweeney, Skinny87, Ranger Steve

I believe the article meets the Good Topic criteria. It includes a set of similar, interrelated articles that cover a specific topic, which are all GA Class or above. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support All the articles on this division's major sub-units and operations are of GA standard - great work Jim. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support What can I say? Simply exemplary. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 09:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Superb. Superb. Buggie111 (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Why not add British airborne operations in North Africa? It's a good article too. You might also consider Frederick Browning. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I had not considered Browning, but the North Africa operation was not carried out by the 1st Airborne Division, just the 1st Parachute Brigade in an independent role.Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support (Disclaimer - main contributor to the Battle of Arnhem article). Ranger Steve   Talk  20:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support A great example of a GT. Zangar (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Excellent work all around. Keep it up! Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment In the footnotes section of the lead article I'm seeing three long gibberish strings, the first being "UNIQ516aa7fbef5695e-nowiki-00000004-QINU2UNIQ516aa7fbef5695e-nowiki-00000005-QINU". Is this on my end or is something broken over there?  S ven M anguard   Wha?  17:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry dont see that Sven Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do see this problem in my normal Chrome and also in IE9, but only when logged out in both - I have no idea as to why! Zangar (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes logged out and get the same, it seems to link to the citation but instead of [22] has the uni-code. I have never seen it before and would not know how to fix it. Its strange as its not happening with other citations and a quick spot check of the other articles does not display the same. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK I have changed a to which seem to have fixed it. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's got it, well done! Zangar (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Excellent and well-organised coverage of a focused topic area. (Disclaimer: I copy-edited two of these articles for GA.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Closed with consensus to promote as good topic. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 02:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)