Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Four Stages of Cruelty


 * 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:38, 3 February 2007.

The Four Stages of Cruelty
Self nomination One of Hogarth's less pleasant series of engravings, but still an interesting look at London society in the 18th century. It's had a well-attended (by today's standards) and useful peer review and some helpful sources magically uncovered by ALoan. Yomangani talk 17:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * slight Support There's no External links like the other articles.--Superplaya 00:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because there are no external sites worth linking to that haven't been used in the references. Yomangani talk 02:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * made his/her first posts after registering at WP:FAC and WP:FAR. Lack of external links is not necessarily a bad thing, per WP:NOT and WP:EL.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. I have edited it a little, but most of this tour-de-force belongs to Yomangani. Bravo. If only A Harlot's Progress or Industry and Idleness met this standard. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Excellent and interesting article, especially good on anatomising the many details in the prints. Good structure and balance, with a convenient interplay between the text and the pictures. A mild criticism: I felt the last paragraph of the lead and the first of the article proper overlapped rather joltingly. And an opinion: I don't find these prints exhibiting less humour than usual for Hogarth's prints—well, maybe the third one—the second one really made me laugh, with the fat lawyers' cart collapsing under them, the two people wobbling on a horse, and, in the distance, someone taking flight like a bird after being tossed by a bull. Thanks for reminding me of this wonderful work. (I'm sure if Hogarth were alive, he'd be drawing Jade Goody.) qp10qp 14:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, another great article (and must surely be one of the quickest from creation to featured). Trebor 16:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "One of the fastest"? Well, it is 18 days old already.  I think the ones discussed in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive8 are still the record holders - Pioneer Zephyr and Kreutz Sungrazers, both under 7 days (although that was getting on for 2 years ago, I am not aware of any faster since).  Ulm Campaign is probably third, in just over 9 days from creation to FA (see User:Raul654/archive10).  Various others articles have done it in only a few weeks. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, my lack of knowledge of WikiHistory lets me down again. It's the fastest I've "seen". Trebor 17:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It was behind Harry McNish in my FAC queue (all two of them), otherwise it would have been faster. I'll try to be quicker on the next one. And of course, it's not featured yet (though thanks for your confidence). Yomangani talk 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I realised that after I wrote it, but it does seem likely now, at any rate. Trebor 17:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. I didn't lose my dinner, but for pennance, Yomangani should next bring Barbaro to status, to keep Laika and other poor animals company - 5 days? Don't forget the External links :o)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. One can only applaud these valiant editors who conjure up such a fine collection of delightful prose. I especially liked the wonderful "His appearance is deliberately more pleasing than the scowling ugly ruffians that populate the rest of the picture". Bravo!
 * I might have a minor issue with the sentence "The other boys carry out equally barbaric acts...." The point I'm trying to make is this: whilst I'm a great supporter of abundant use of proper punctuation, one could raise the concern that employing the services of a (somewhat lonely) colon; a multitude of semicolons, nice and shiny; the odd comma; an em dash; and a pair of parentheses, all in the same sentence &mdash; but what a brilliant one it is! &mdash; might be construed as "being too much of a good thing." I'll leave it to the punctuational wisdom of the editors to see if any corrective action is warranted. --Plek 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support already worked out all my nitpicks in peer review. Excellent article and, if not the record, impressive speed all the same. Opabinia regalis 02:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT. After reading this article, I'd like to have these prints on my wall. (I collect antique prints and maps).  Well-written (brilliant and compelling...even captivating), well-referenced, and a comprehensive treatment of the subject. Excellent FA candidate.&mdash;ExplorerCDT 06:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Great article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support excellent and comprehensive article. Well-written too. ← A NAS  Talk? 11:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, the intro's use of 'humourous' is not, surprisingly, correct British English. See User talk:Spellmaster and here.--Nydas (Talk) 13:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support -- Awful images, beautiful article! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Great stuff. Though if it said who wrote the verses I missed that; it would be nice to know. Hogarth himself?  Johnbod 04:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Rev. James Townley (last sentence of "Background"). Yomangani talk 09:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks Johnbod 03:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.