Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Whittle


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Raul654 04:11, 19 February 2009.

John Whittle

 * Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk)

I am nominating this article for featured article because it has been passed as both GA and A-Class by Wikiproject Military history with little trouble, and I believe it meets the criteria. The article has received a copy-edit and third party review by Ian Rose, of which I am very grateful. Any and all comments welcome. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support with minor proviso that I did, as mentioned, copyedit recently - however Bryce is too kind as there was very little to do. Passed this at GAN, supported at MILHIST ACR and can only repeat what I said at the latter, that this is detailed, balanced, well written, properly sourced. A worthy FA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review: all images are taken before 1920, thus falling into the public domain. No issues.  Jappalang (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments -
 * You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE.
 * I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I have used the Template:Cite web and Template:Australian Dictionary of Biography where applicable for citations, and Template:Citation to list book sources used in the article under the "References" section. I have used the same practice on both of the other articles I have taken through FAC and no comment was said about their use. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm... they shouldn't be mixed, they give inconsistent results, that's the concern. You'll have to ask Sandy for more particulars, I just have this on my "list o things to check that Sandy said to check" (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 03:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, it seems that all of the citations conform with each other, as do all books listed in the "References" section. I have no idea how I could get around this if it is in violation as I can't exactly place the books in the cite web template or websources with their links in a citation template. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you never seen the cite book template? It's pretty easy to not know all our templates... Ealdgyth - Talk 04:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You know what? I think I have actually stumbled across that once before, but just forgot. If I replate the citation template with this, will the issue be addressed? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. if you use one (cite) template, you have to use them all. Either all (citation) or all (cite X), that's the deal. Luckily, there are a lot of (cite) templates, covering most all the various types of citations you'd want to use. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for all your help, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - no problems on my read-through outside of forced image sizes, which I removed. Yet another great article! :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  03:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ed. I reverted your removal of the forced image sizes, however, as I think it is allowed in this case due to the small default size which makes the images hard to see, particularly in detail. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good, Abraham, can't see anything wrong with it! Skinny87 (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Skinny! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.