Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Dan Povenmire/archive1: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:52, 22 November 2009 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors278,969 edits restart← Previous edit Revision as of 19:54, 22 November 2009 edit undoSuperFlash101 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers5,019 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 18: Line 18:


::: '''Restart''', . Citations are not consistent or correct (inconsistent date formats and incorrect use of italics), and it's not clear to me that sourcing concerns have been addressed. '''Images and alt text''' reviewed. ] (]) 18:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC) ::: '''Restart''', . Citations are not consistent or correct (inconsistent date formats and incorrect use of italics), and it's not clear to me that sourcing concerns have been addressed. '''Images and alt text''' reviewed. ] (]) 18:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::What? First off, why was the entire content of the FAC removed? Second, what are you talking about, "the citations are not consistent or correct"? '''Every''' date format is consistent(it's all ISO) but the works/publishers I understand (another user kindly fixed them). Could you please explain why this whole thing was "restarted"? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:54, 22 November 2009

Dan Povenmire

Nominator(s): The Flash 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Toolbox

After a copyedit and a GA review, I believe this article successfully complies with FAC criteria. It is well written, contains references to reliable sources, and follows all style/image guidelines. Now, something bound to come up is the sources. Here's what I've got to defend them:

Thanks in advance, The Flash 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Restart, previous nom. Citations are not consistent or correct (inconsistent date formats and incorrect use of italics), and it's not clear to me that sourcing concerns have been addressed. Images and alt text reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
What? First off, why was the entire content of the FAC removed? Second, what are you talking about, "the citations are not consistent or correct"? Every date format is consistent(it's all ISO) but the works/publishers I understand (another user kindly fixed them). Could you please explain why this whole thing was "restarted"? The Flash 19:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)