Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bath, Somerset/archive1

Bath
Self-nomination - I think it is comprehensive and interesting, it fulfils all of the FA criteria. It has passed through Peer Review and I have personally dealt with all failings listed there. Please provide constructive criticism if you decide to object. &mdash;Oldak Quill 07:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. A few comments: while you have a reference, obviously more than just that one went into writing this article. Maybe a slightly more representative set? Also, this city is most familiar to me as related to one of the Canterbury Tales ("The Wife of Bath's Tale," I believe). I would at least mention that in the arts section. On the whole, this is a well-written and well-organized piece. --DanielNuyu 08:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Well-written and comprehensive. The pictures are nice, although a couple more wouldn't hurt. A few more references would also raise the already high-quality of the article. Good job. -- Shauri 23:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support jguk 17:38, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) Object A good article and nearly there - and will support once the following points are addressed:
 * (1)FAs should be WP's best, and good practice for an international encyclopaedia would be to show distances, areas, etc. both in metric and imperial measurements, and temperatures in Celsius and Fahrenheit.
 * (2)Also, in "Geography" the areas of Greater London and Paris seem suspiciously the same! as well as suspiciously different from the Greater London and Paris articles!
 * (3)The text suggests there are 6 notes, but only 2 notes appear.
 * (4) References are missing - as DanielNuyu notes, you have one, but others surely must have been used, jguk 18:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have corrected points 1, 2 and 3. 4 is more tricky, much of the references used were the websites listed in "external links". In any case, the references are there, how do you suggest I deal with this? --Oldak Quill 00:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the changes. I'd suggest moving those external links that were references from "external links" to "references". I think this does need tweaking for me to support as references are important - ideally we should list them all. Once you have tweaked this (I can't do it myself, as I don't know which ones you have used - if I could I would have done) - my vote will be to support, jguk 06:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. --Oldak Quill 11:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support: (Although I did write the architecture section) the article covers all salient points, and is well illustrated. Giano | Talk 06:12, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, nicely done. The points I raised on peer review have been well taken care of. Bishonen|Talk 11:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support - Nice, but a few oddities to be dealt with - the reported population varies widely in the lead and under demographics. Also, using the word "comply" in the context of ethnic makeup is unintentionally sinister. Southeast instead of south east, etc. Fawcett5 15:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have clarified the differences in population: one is for the immediate city, "Greater Bath", for which the government do not have statistics this year. The other is for Bath as a whole, including the more accurate city borders which the government provide statistics for. The word "comply" refer to the religious makeup, but I have changed this to "compare". I have also made all references to "south west", "south-east", etc. "southwest" and "southeast". --Oldak Quill 17:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Umm. I was the one to change them from "southeast" to "south-east", as per normal useage in English. IME "southeast" is wrong; is this incorrect? James F. (talk) 22:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. James F. (talk) 22:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)