Wikipedia:Peer review/Christopher Columbus/archive1

Christopher Columbus
This article was a recent Spotlight collaberation. We think that our changes have improved it enough to make it nearly ready for featured. We removed large sections and placed them in their own articles. Thank you for your consideration. Bastiq ▼ e demandez 00:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it's at featured status yet, but Good Article quality perhaps. WikiProject Biography rates it B-class, obviously the assessment was before our changes, so GA-class isn't that much of a stretch. The issue of stability does come in here, though... it was subject to a more or less constant flood of vandalism before I semi-protected it, and of course it has, inevitably, been drastically altered recently – Gurch 02:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to be unpopular with my Spotlight friends... I can't see GA yet, because I'm not fond of the references list. I'm picky, I'm allowed to be here. Feel free to disagree. I want to see all cite.php based references. *nod* Other than that, go ahead. Oh, can we stuff an infobox in there? I like infoboxes...pretty... :) ~Kylu ( u | t )  05:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am for all cite.php references as well... I will get on that, or you can as well! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We considered an infobox at one point, but didn't think it would be particularly useful, so we didn't add one. But we could be wrong... if you can make one, then by all means go ahead – Gurch 15:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, looks like we have an infobox, and the Spotlight will work on those cite.php, we have all the websites in the proper format, but we don't have the books formatted yet. Give the channel a day or two! Also, I have done copyediting up to section 3 (on the voyages), I will finish copyediting in 2 days. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest extending the lead to comply with WP:LEAD and perhaps a few more references. Then it should be as good as gold for GA status. --Tarret 18:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The lead is too small. More inline refs needed: there are still entire paras without refs. Some sections can use more pictures. See also's should be incorporated into main article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)