Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mothers of the Disappeared/archive2


 * 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:26, 27 May 2011.

Mothers of the Disappeared

 * Nominator(s): Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello all. Today I bring "Mothers of the Disappeared" to you for the second time. It's an article which combines several different subjects (politics, human rights, and music) pretty thoroughly. The last FAC was rather quiet, but source and image concerns were cleared up. Enjoy the article! Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Images, as Melicans mentions, were cleared at the last FAC. The only suggestion I would make is to consider adding names to the Reagan Administration caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added their names; thanks for the suggestion! Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: I checked these out last time round. Only one other issue: you should be consistent in how you indicate when sources have subscription-only access. See, for example, refs 41 and 45. One way of doing this is using the template, thus:. Otherwise, sources all look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh, I didn't know that template existed. Thanks, I've substituted it in and will be sure to use it in the future! Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Didn't get past the euphemism in the lead "had been forcibly disappeared by". Tijfo098 (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please clarify your oppose? Forced disappearance is the article that it links to, and all of the sources use that term. Saying "forcibly disappeared" is not a euphamism; it's the grammatically correct usage of the term. And can you really oppose when you haven't even looked beyond the lead? Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I requested that the user return to clarify the opposition on 10th May on their talk page. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect this user didn't actually click the link. I agree with the nominator that the term has a very specific meaning is grammatically correct. Unless Tijfo has valid complaints, I suggest that the delegates ignore this oppose. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect the same, but after a month, this FAC must be closed, reluctantly, since it seems no one will review. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.