Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Pontiac's War


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.

Pontiac's Rebellion
For procedural reasons, other project members submitted this article for A-class review twice before: here and here. People left some very nice comments, but because the article was written back in the days before all the cool kids were into footnotes, it was not rated "A class" the second time around. (Don't ask about the first.) The article now has all the citations we've grown to love, so let's see if it rates an "A". Thank you! —Kevin Myers 18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support for the third (and hopefully final) time. Carom 19:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Of all the A-Class nominees, it's my belief that this one is probably the best. In addition, I've checked at what it was criticized for last time, and I believe that all the changes that they've asked for have been made. Climie.ca 04:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I definately believe this article is now an A class article... possibly even FA. ALthough I believe that the refs probably need to be cleaned up some before making it into an FAC.  Generally, my experience is that you don't need to list the book name every time you use the ref.  The authors name is sufficient unless you are dealing with an author who wrote numerous books/articles that are being cited.Balloonman 03:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the Chicago Manual of Style recommends the Author, Title, Page format for short-form footnotes; so I suspect this varies among different style guides. Kirill Lokshin 05:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Definitely.  I believe it's ready for FA nomination.  I think the use of the quote box early in article is a nice touch.  The project's community's insistence on extensive in-line citations may be an overreaction to outside criticisms of Wikipedia's reliability and credibility, but, that's how it is. Cla68 23:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. It's a great article and excellently written. I agree that it is ready for FAC. Kyriakos 21:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.