Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Third of May 1808


 * 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 00:25, 24 April 2008.

The Third of May 1808
Self-nominator Major painting by Goya, and 200th anniversary of the event depicted will be May 3, 2008. I may not be able to participate fully in the copyedit process, but others with significant knowledge who have already contributed (Johnbod, Ceoil, Ewulp, Modernist, and Outriggr) will, hopefully, be available. JNW (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Articlestats:
 * Ceoil 205
 * Johnbod 115
 * Modernist 82
 * JNW 55
 * Noetica 44

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 06:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't find any language or style issues. In fact, I can't write this well :)  I enjoyed Simon Schama's program on this painting, and learned so much more from this article.  Beautiful. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, I was skimming and missed some things. There still is a lot of beautiful language.  I'll look again after your copyedit ... looking forward to it! - Dan Dank55 (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Support -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 09:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments - web links checked out okay, sources look okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Phew! Thanks Ealdgyth. Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article has been fully copyedited by a number of editors, most notably by Noetica. Ceoil (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * O Ceoil, not fully! I have more to do, and will get on with it tomorrow (Australian Eastern Standard Time). Interesting article. I'll have my say here when I've copyedited more.[See below.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoN oetica! T–]
 * – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoN oetica! T– 11:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats fine Noetica, we cant spell, but we can waite. Ceoil (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: the third paragraph in the "Description" section and the following paragraphs in The Disasters of War section seem out of place. I think the flow would be better going from description to provenance, and then on to "Relationship to other works" or some such. Jfire (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support—As usual from these editors, it's among our best work. (I think I tweaked a bit of it before nomination.) Tony   (talk)  06:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Another excellent painting article that has my strong commendation. I would now urge editors not to overwork it, and simply to protect it from any new editing that is not up to standard. It should pass as it is right now, I say.
 * – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoN oetica! T– 08:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm delighted by your enthusiasm but don't you think you should declare your interest as a copy-editor of this? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 09:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Roger, I made– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoN oetica! 's involement fairly clear above. Ceoil (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite. I only did some late polishing, at Ceoil's request. And that has recently been documented at the head, and in remarks above.
 * – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoN oetica! T– 11:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - top-notch. Yomangani talk 09:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Great article that I'm proud I took part off. I did a minor copy edit. Me   what do u want?  Your Hancock Please  10:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edits, Mm40. Ceoil (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Any time, Ceoil. Or anyone else. I'll copy edit anything you ask me to.  Me   what do u want?  Your Hancock Please  15:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have boldly added Today%27s_featured_article/requests before something else applied. Not sure of the style there - do you remove the footnotes etc? Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please remove it; the instructions there are clear, and that just makes Raul's job harder. I've alerted him on his talk page to this FAC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, removed. Diff here if anyone wants to see . Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Johnbod :-) I'm sure Raul and others will appreciate that, as that page is quite the hassle.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was asked to come back and read the article again, but I'm really tied up with style guidelines and other stuff, and seriously...some of our best writers, and passed by Tony and Noetica? And some of the language was really beautiful the first time I skimmed it.  If it were possible to support it without reading it, I would :) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.