Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sydney Newman

Sydney Newman
Self-nomination. This article has existed on Wikipedia since 2003, but in November last year I rebuilt it from the ground up and have been refining it since then. I'm pretty pleased with it (but then, that's what they all say). I put it on peer review on Monday, but it just sat there receiving no replies, so after enquiring on the FAC talk page I decided to move it here rather than keep it hanging around on PR. Despite the lack of response at peer review, I did specifically ask a couple of users, User:Bodnotbod and User:Josiah Rowe, to look at it for me, and they both seemed to think it was pretty good, so I thought it was probably good enough to nominate it now. Angmering 23:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - well-constructed article. Essexmutant 16:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, looks comprehensive and pretty well-written. I will, however, note that ending the entire article with a quote is bad form, IMO. Tuf-Kat 21:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per my comments to Angmering on his talk page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Mild object. I changed the references to notes with numbers since the footnotes in the text create numbers.  This will make it easier on the reader.  My only other concern is that there are several red wiki links in the article (at least 8).  Can these be removed or can articles be created for them? Rlevse 16:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware that featuring redlinks was a factor against FAs, but I can certainly create decent stubs for most of them and remove any that seem less likely to deserve or ever get articles. Angmering 18:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There are now no redlinks in the article. Angmering 22:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's acutally buried in a sublink off the FA criteria page about linking. A few are okay, but too many don't look good.  Thanks for fixing it, I changed my vote. Rlevse 13:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - comprehensive and well-referenced. &mdash;Whouk (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support per Whouk. Ardenn 19:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, looks good. A few of the sections are a bit long, though: perhaps sub-sections or main article? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 17:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just browsing through some of the already featured biographies, and I can't say it looks to me as though the section lengths here are wildly out of preportion? Angmering 22:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)