Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/The British Grenadiers

The British Grenadiers
This is a military march that is the official or authorized march of numerous British Commonwealth military regiments. This file adds significantly to the following articles:
 * The British Grenadiers
 * Grenadier Guards, Regimental Quick March
 * Honourable Artillery Company, Regimental Quick March
 * Royal Engineers, Regimental Quick March
 * Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, Regimental Quick March
 * Royal Gibraltar Regiment, an authorised march
 * Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery, an authorised march
 * The Canadian Grenadier Guards, an authorised march
 * The Royal Regiment of Canada, an authorised march
 * The Princess Louise Fusiliers, an authorised march
 * 5th Battalion Canadian Mounted Rifles, an authorised march


 * Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment for EV purposes can you please show that this is the march of those units. I did a quick SRS of the units and neither of the pages mentioned the march. cheers --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  00:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this what you mean?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support Good quality performance. I could listen to this forever and still not tire of the tune. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:56pm • 08:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Incomprehensible storyline, after reading the article it skips verses 2 and 4. It's just like that recording of Good King Wenceslas that Adam posted on the talk page a while back. If the song is a story, it should be the entire story or at least the first 3 parts (verses). — James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:12pm • 10:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Great quality, good EV; I'm not terribly concerned about the verses that are missed, as I don't think these verses constitute a narrative, unlike the case of the Wenceslas carol a while back. Major Bloodnok (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Query and request to be moved back into main FSC area Generally policy has been to wait until something has either two supports or two opposes (in addition to nominator), whichever comes first. Why is this nomination different.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have determined that the "Nominations to be Closed" section was created with instructions inconsistent with policy, which led to this being incorrectly moved. I have corrected the instructions and moved this nomination back to its proper place in the candidate queue for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that the main instructions allow an item to close as an FS with only two out of three supports including the nominator. I think I have experienced about 40 FS promotions and do not recall having had one closed with so little clarity of consensus.  I am hoping someone else votes, but will put this back in the to be closed list this weekend if there is no further commentary.  I remain uncomfortable calling this a valid close. In all prior noms, practice has been to await further feedback with one support and one oppose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose agreeing with James that this is verz incomprehensible, stating something, without explaining it; and I've seen plenty of better ways to cut the verses. Not sure what would be good to represent the British Grenadiers, but this isn't very good. --&mdash;innotata 16:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not promoted --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  03:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

