Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zanzibar Revolution/archive1


 * 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 Maralia 18:26, 15 February 2009.

Zanzibar Revolution

 * Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk)

Following on from my last (and first!) FA, Anglo-Zanzibar War, here is another Zanzibar related article which has gone through GA and the MilHist A-class processes and which I feel is of suitable quality for an FA. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Did this go through PR? I'm finding grammatical and MOS problems. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 14:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think "almost unquestionably" means what you think it means. "Almost unquestionably" means that there is little doubt at the present time. I think you mean something like, "virtually unquestioned" or similar. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 14:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Perhaps it did convey something different to what I had thought, I have changed it per you suggestion - Dumelow (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Leaning Oppose someone please buy a good guide to grammar and mail it to MILHIST's A-Review folks, please. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 15:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This article has not been through PR, perhaps I should have sent it there first (I usually do so before I take my articles to GA). However I thought the prose was good enough for FA, it is as well sourced as I could make it and there were no MoS problems that I could see.  If there are some grammatical errors that are causing you to oppose could you point them out so that I can fix them.  I have been through the article a few times recently and not found much.  Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, just taken a long hard look at the article and made some fairly significant prose changes (must have missed them completely before!). Please let me know if that has helped the situation at all.  Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Off hand it looks as if the article could use a copyedit. A good article for sure, amazing progress since I asked the nominator to expand it but I would have recommended a peer review before this FA nomination.  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 17:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on the above comments it is cleat that this article is in need of another pair of eyes and so I am withdrawing this nom in order to get a peer review. Many thanks for the helpful comments guys.  I am not sure what actions should be taken for withdrawing the article from the list so hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me will spot this and sort it out.  Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: I will hold off nomming for peer review until this nom has been closed as the rules say it cannot be at both FAC and PR at the same time - Dumelow (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


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