Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cardinal Richelieu

Cardinal Richelieu
A self-nomination. -- Emsworth 01:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. It took me a while to read through (mostly due to my unfamiliarity with the subject), but it seems quite thorough and well-written. slambo 02:58, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Good article about a pivotal figure in European history.  Edeans 06:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Comment. Looks good, but I will do some research before I cast my vote on this one. Minor objection for now - references can use proper formatting (ISBN missing). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that the references were subject to any rules at present. Could you kindly direct me to the convention which dictates the proper format? -- Emsworth 13:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a persistent misconception that ISBNs are obligatory—lack of ISBN is often made an objection on this page—but they're not: "The ISBN (which is wikified automatically) is optional". They also have drawbacks which make some people prefer not to use them: "However, ISBNs only identify a particular edition of a book, and the reader will not see the full range of versions of the book for sale". Or the full range of versions available in libraries, either. I'm against them, I don't put them into references that I add (though they often accrue afterwards). Bishonen | Talk 15:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Further comment on ISBNs, some books don't have them. In my own research into railroad history, I'm often referencing self-published books that do not have ISBNs assigned to them.  For example, on the Pioneer Zephyr article, the Wayner reference Car Names, Numbers and Consists does not have an ISBN yet it is a real reference that I can hold and photograph for proof.  A lack of ISBNs should never be a factor in reference completeness, but where they are available, they should be included.  slambo 16:19, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Comment. Looks great, but the lead is a little confusing. It mixes partly chronological summary with general information about him in ways that doesn't let us know which is which at times. The --ZayZayEM 03:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)lead mentions he's ordained a bishop, but then sudddenly he is a cardinal? Also the last orphan paragraph should be merged in smoothly somewhere. Welcome back to producing FA's by the way. - Taxman 14:57, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * First of all, thank you for welcoming my return. I hope that I have addressed your comment adequately; I have made the first paragaraph a chronological summary, the second a general overview of his policies, and the third a comment on his non-political activities. -- Emsworth 15:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly what I was looking for. The lead is great now. - Taxman 18:37, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Good article, comprehensive as far as I can judge. Jeronimo 18:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. A fine article. Filiocht 10:25, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: (No support, no objection) Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the Cardinal also a key figure in the Three Musketeers? -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:23, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No, but a fictional character bearing his name was, as covered in the Legacy section of the article. Filiocht 14:17, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Very well written. Leading part is a little too dense, but good. --Poli 05:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support--ZayZayEM 03:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Comprehensive & well written, nice images, and appropriately referenced. A winner. Fawcett5 20:44, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)