| Revision as of 15:13, 16 July 2022 editNutez (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users600 edits ←Created page with '===]=== {{subst:void|}} <noinclude>{{la|{{subst:SUBPAGENAME:Misplaced Pages:{{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}}}}} {{Featured article tools|1={{subst:#if:{{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}|-1|2}}|{{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}|-1|2}}|{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}}}}}</noinclude> <!-- Please don't edit anything above here. Be sure to include yo...' | Revision as of 15:25, 16 July 2022 edit undoSmkolins (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers42,419 edits →Baháʼí FaithNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| I am nominating this featured article for review because it hasn't been reviewed formally in over 15 years. The original FAC from 2004 is also (relatively) thin, with the nominator himself conceding that he {{xt|just stumbled upon it}}. The FA vetting process has been improved considerably since the noughties, and different standards apply. I posted an informal review notice on the talk page last year, to some response from editors interested in the topic, who nevertheless seemed a bit preoccupied with other tasks. ] (]) 15:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC) | I am nominating this featured article for review because it hasn't been reviewed formally in over 15 years. The original FAC from 2004 is also (relatively) thin, with the nominator himself conceding that he {{xt|just stumbled upon it}}. The FA vetting process has been improved considerably since the noughties, and different standards apply. I posted an informal review notice on the talk page last year, to some response from editors interested in the topic, who nevertheless seemed a bit preoccupied with other tasks. ] (]) 15:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC) | ||
| : Nice to see renewed interest in doing this.] (]) 15:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:25, 16 July 2022
Baháʼí Faith
Baháʼí Faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this featured article for review because it hasn't been reviewed formally in over 15 years. The original FAC from 2004 is also (relatively) thin, with the nominator himself conceding that he just stumbled upon it. The FA vetting process has been improved considerably since the noughties, and different standards apply. I posted an informal review notice on the talk page last year, to some response from editors interested in the topic, who nevertheless seemed a bit preoccupied with other tasks. Nutez (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nice to see renewed interest in doing this.Smkolins (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)