Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cristero War/archive1
A self-nomination. After a week on WP:PR, I had no comments. I have added a references section nonetheless. Mpolo 08:34, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Support,
as long as that image at the start is moved to the right. Looks really ugly at present. Ambi 08:52, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) - Support. Filiocht 11:26, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Object for now. The lead section needs to be expanded into a summary of the article. If this is done, I'll change my vote to support. Filiocht 10:15, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)- I have expanded the lead somewhat. That got a red link for the U.S. Ambassador into the lead paragraph, though. Presumably he is important enough for an article, but that is not written yet. -- Mpolo 10:55, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Object. Not bad, but needs a copyedit before I'll support it. There several instance of POV ("turned out to be military geniuses", "finally defeated"). There are also some strange constructions ("Unfortunately for the rebels, the Mexican bishops were not entirely behind the uprising. In fact the majority opposed the Cristeros."), and some style issues (e.g. -- should be replaced by —, Fr. should be written in full). Some other points need clarification (e.g. "making them second-class citizens"). As a minor point, the example of Vera Cruz/Veracruz is not a very strong example of the "anticlerical mindset". Jeronimo 17:04, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)- I went through the article once more, but it would be good to have another set of eyes do another copyedit. I modified the three phrases you mention and the em-dashes. The "making them second-class citizens" was actually explained in the next sentence. I repunctuated with a colon to make this clearer. I also described the spelling changes as superficial attempts to laicize the names. Is there more to do? —Mpolo 18:35, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Seems ok. I'm not sure what the policy is regarding abbreviations (I couldn't find the appropriate section in the Manual of Style); I think it is better to writhe the full word (Father). There's no need to use abbreviations, IMO. Since this is only a minor issue, I'll support. Jeronimo 18:37, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I went through the article once more, but it would be good to have another set of eyes do another copyedit. I modified the three phrases you mention and the em-dashes. The "making them second-class citizens" was actually explained in the next sentence. I repunctuated with a colon to make this clearer. I also described the spelling changes as superficial attempts to laicize the names. Is there more to do? —Mpolo 18:35, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)