Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/HMS Hood (51)/archive1

Nontranscluded FAC
Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Support: I find this article to meet my expectations, it covers the topic in sufficient depth and is well researched, this is the quality level I would be expecting from a top-grade article on such an important subject and noteworthy vessel. I see no problems with the article, and thus no problems to obstruct a successful nomination. Kyteto (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Support passed the article at GA and can see no reason not to promote to FA.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Now if we can get some kind soul to review the images and sources and check for plagiarism, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am by no means a professional at this, but I checked every image used in the article and its discription page, I am satisfied that there is no copyright violations or unexplained sourcing. If this is sufficient for the image review, that is fine by me. Kyteto (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you forget to list this on the FAC page? I don't see it there and I didn't see you edit the page on or around the 13th. Just sayin Brad (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure looks that way!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Because this FAC sat untranscluded for almost two weeks, I have moved premature supports to talk page from main page. Supporters should review the current page and re-enter their declarations. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why did you even bother doing this, Sandy? Everybody knew that they were judging against FA criteria, so why deprecate their commentary because of my mistake?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think these comments are "deprecated" since they can easily be re-added. I also don't want to establish a precedent (that could be applied to articles from less experienced editors) of allowing a nomination to appear at FAC "pre-loaded".  Similar mistakes happen frequently, but are usually detected more quickly-- two weeks is too long to go untranscluded, and in such cases, it might be better in the future to start a new review.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't see the issue as a big deal myself, since I'm certain that you'd take those sorts of factors into consideration before deciding to close, but it does mean that I will need to contact all of the previous reviewers to alert them that that they need to re-add their comments as they probably didn't watchlist this review, which seems to be unnecessary additional work for all involved. Easily done, as I'm sure you're aware, but extra work regardless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I follow what Sandy is saying. If she allows the precedent, then people may start notifying only their wikiproject when they create their FAC page, with the result that the page is loaded up with favorable reviews before the wider community sees it, which might influence both whether they review and what they say.  I had no idea this hadn't been transcluded when I reviewed.  In the future, I'll do exactly what Sandy did here if I'm the first to notice a non-transclusion, unless someone wants to talk me out of it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FAC continues to be extremely complicated in its processes. I don't wish to "pre-load" the nomination, but the comment has been made in good faith and ample thoroughness. I'll let the contribution go as is sought by the community. Kyteto (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed that FAC is complicated; the good news is that you don't have to worry about that, just review the article, or not. This was a simple mistake, easily fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if this seemed unecessarily bureaucratic, but 1) no, I would not have closed it, knowing it had support, which was linked on talk, and 2) I think not establishing a precedent to be important. Sturm is a frequent FAC nominator, so I can't allow one thing for him that I might disallow for a lesser experienced nominator, which could lead to some gaming of the system.  I hope we're OK now?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No problems, mate. I just didn't think that transcluding it late with some supports already in place would give me any sort of advantage over any other article, but I can see your point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)