Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Order of the Garter

Order of the Garter
Self-nomination. -- Emsworth 21:03, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support.... but: (1) "Ladies Companions" could use a brief explanation where it first appears, because it looks like a spelling mistake, (2) the English meaning of the motto should be given where the motto first appears (this could be fixed by removing the first appearance and simply referring to "the motto"), and (3) do "sovereign" and "government" need capitalizing?  Otherwise, bravo.  Exploding Boy 16:47, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've clarified (1), and followed suggestion (2). "Sovereign," the noun, is capitalised, but "sovereign," the adjective, is not. When referring to "the Government," one refers to the specific body of British ministers (as in the article), but when referring to "the government," one speaks about the general political institutions of the nation. -- Emsworth 17:51, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Lord Emsworth has been doing a ton of edits to the British Honours sytem lately - bravo! --Zerbey 03:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Postdated support. No offense to Lord Emsworth, but I feel that right now, thanks to the thorough and energetic rewriting he's recently given it, the page is basically the work of one writer -- better to feature the article once it's reentered the wikipedia collaborative community. So I vote to wait a month or so. Doops 06:01, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Clarification in response to User:A. Shetsen: Sorry, perhaps I was unclear. I realize that featuring an article doesn't set it in stone; I merely meant that it seemed to me that it would be more worthwhile to feature the article once it's receieved the benefit of collaboration. Give Lord Emsworth's improvements time to settle in before the article is thrust into the glare of public gaze. :)
 * Response to A. Shetsen: for my general reply to the notion that this is an "improper objection," see the discussion page. In this case, I protest that I am not objecting to featured status for the article! I'm just asking that it be postponed until other users have a chance to go over Lord Emsworth's work. This includes me -- there are a number of changes I'd like to see but haven't made yet, at first out of politeness to Lord E. (I didn't want to kill his momentum by interrupting him while he was so hard at work), and more recently because I just haven't gotten the chance to make them. But I suppose there was really no need for me to suggest a delay, since featured article nominations are supposed to have a built-in lag time of a week; and perhaps that's enough time for me, or anybody else who's interested in the article, to weigh in. So I'm sorry for bothering you all. Doops 22:10, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Support. The article is excellent.  BTW, can Doops' objection possibly be in order?  Even featured articles can be edited, so says the policy.  Sigh.  A. Shetsen 06:33, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Response to Dopps. You raise a point further argument of which will definitely be off-topic, but is important.  Therefore, see the new Improper Objections section under discussion for this page.  But as it applies to the present article, I cannot see what specific action can be taken to fix your, to put it bluntly, objection. A. Shetsen 06:53, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Support. James F. (talk) 00:46, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)