Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Jutland/archive1

Battle of Jutland
This was a featured article before the current system of voting was adopted. It was de-featured following a short discussion in January and February 2004. It's much improved now, and might deserve featuring again. Note: partial self-nomination (I drew the maps, found the pictures, and wrote much of the lead section and §4, §7, §8). Gdr 21:20, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
 * I was looking at this article and was just about to nominate it myself! Full support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:33, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. A model battle article. jengod 22:07, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Me gusta. Troppus. J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 22:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Strongly support. (Note, most of the bit I wrote has now been separated out into the Order of battle at Jutland article). -- Arwel 22:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Brilliant! Zerbey 22:54, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Geoff/Gsl 23:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Great stuff. One tiny remark: the sidebar mentions that the "Battle after" was the Brusilov offence, but this is mentioned nowhere else in the article, and seems to only follow this battle chronologically. If there is no direct connection otherwise, I would leave it out; if there is, it should be mentioned in the article. Jeronimo 12:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The "battle before" and "battle after" are purely chronological. This is a consequence of the "battlebox" design agreed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Battles. I think the idea is that once all the battles in a war have battleboxes a reader will be able to go through the war chronologically stepping from battle to battle. There's certainly scope to argue about whether this is a good idea. (N.B. It was purely a coincidence that Verdun is mentioned in the text, and I think the statement is dubious, so I removed it; see Talk:Battle of Jutland). Gdr 20:47, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
 * Support. Just out of interest, does the &amp;#x2777; (&#x2777;) character in the 'battleship action' section meant do anything? It shows up as a blank on my browser (edit this to see what it is).
 * Unicode characters U+2776 to U+277E are DINGBAT NEGATIVE CIRCLED DIGIT ONE to NINE (&#x2776;&#x2777;&#x2778;&#x2779;&#x277a;&#x277b;&#x277c;&#x277d;&#x277e;). The article uses them to refer to the corresponding circled digits on the maps. Gdr 11:40, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
 * Should probably be changed to (1), (2) style or similar. The characters render as ^][´_abcdef in camino. &#9999; Sverdrup 22:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Very odd! There is nothing wrong with the XHTML entity, neither in the wikisource nor in the XHTML output, and my browser (OmniWeb) renders it fine. As does Safari. The Mozilla browsers on Mac OS, Camino, MozAppSuite and Firefox, all have the same problem, though. I don't have any other browsers to test with right now. &mdash; David Remahl 00:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Well written, appears comprehensive. Those particular Unicode characters should be changed to something else if there are compatibility problems. They look great on my machine, but not everyone uses "Safari, the Greatest Web Browser Know to Humanity&copy;" ;-) func(talk) 21:06, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support when more interlinks are added (to words like battlecruiser and many others). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)